# Is this fair?



## dylans (Oct 14, 2012)

My kid has been excluded from school for 2 days for fighting. Fair enough I guess but the kid who started the fight has walked away scott free. Now I am not some "my kid is an angel" kind of parent and I don't think my son is always in the right but the following doesn't seem fair to me. Here is what happened. None of these facts are in question

On thursday night on the bus on the way home my 12 year old son got into a verbal argument with another kid of the same age. The argument was over nothing, just trivial kid stuff. But the other kid got annoyed and stormed off downstairs. While he was downstairs he obviously stewed over it for 5 minutes and got himself into a rage then he came back upstairs and attacked my son. Smashed his bag into my son's face.

Now my kid is no fighter, he's very small and the other kid is bigger than him but he responded to the attack by fighting back and apparently he went too far and beat the other kid up and kicked him in the head 3 times. Now I can't defend his response. It was over the top but he was attacked and he didn't start the fight.

The other kid went home and cried to his mommy who called the police. The next day, the cops and teachers are waiting for my kid. The cops decide not to press charges but the school decide to suspend my son for 2 days, 3 including the whole day he spent sitting in the office.The other kid wasn't punished at all. Despite the fact that he started the fight by assaulting my son.

Now I have no issue with him being excluded. Violence is wrong and if I am honest my son went way too far in his response but he didn't start the fight. He responded to an assault that was launched against him. My point is not that my son shouldn't be punished. I like the schools zero tolerance approach to violence and I think he went too far in his response so I accept his exclusion but I think it is a bit rich for the kid who started the fight to attack my son and then complain that he didn't like my son's response to being attacked and I think its disgraceful that he shouldn't receive the same punishment for starting the fight.

I think the fact that the other kid started the fight should be taken into account and at the least both kids should be excluded. As it is it seems to me that starting a fight and launching a premeditated assault is treated less severely than winning one.

I have to accompany him to school on Tuesday and I am weighing up my response. Part of me just wants to draw a line under this and move on but part of me thinks this is not fair and I am worried that by blaming only my son for this incident, he will be portrayed as the instigator when he wasn't and that will go on his school record.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 14, 2012)

dylans said:


> I like the schools zero tolerance approach to violence


 
Doesn't sound like zero tolerance approach if other kid's not been punished


----------



## Badgers (Oct 14, 2012)

I would draw a line. Kids whacking each other with bags (handbags it could be referred to) is 'assault' but kicking in the head is another. Not saying your lad was in the wrong but went too far. 

Also worth noting that a 'school record' is frankly pointless and never referred to after you leave school.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 14, 2012)

"Smashed" his bag? Schoolbags are obviously made of sterner stuff these days than when I was little.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 14, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> "Smashed" his bag? Schoolbags are obviously made of sterner stuff these days.


 
What's in the bags could pack quite a punch.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 14, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> What's in the bags could pack quite a punch.


 
Badgers has obviously never been bashed in the head by a laptop carrier twat while sitting on the bus


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Oct 14, 2012)

I agree with Badgers on this - it is unfair that the other lad wasn't punished but I would be inclined to draw a line under things otherwise it might excalate into more of an issue that you would like.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Oct 14, 2012)

I'm a bit of a 'justice at any cost' kind of person in these situations (for better or worse) so I'd be more inclined to bring the subject up calmly with the head when you see them, but I don't have kids and I don't know if I'd think differently were I actually in that situation.


----------



## Badgers (Oct 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:
			
		

> Badgers has obviously never been bashed in the head by a laptop carrier twat while sitting on the bus



Many times


----------



## dylans (Oct 14, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> "Smashed" his bag? Schoolbags are obviously made of sterner stuff these days than when I was little.


 
It could be argued that assault with a bag is assault with a weapon. The dictionary definition of a weapon is "_an instrument used to attack_" Anything can a weapon if used to hurt someone.The bag did hurt him and he had a red bruise on his cheek when he got home but yeah kicking him in the head was pretty extreme I agree. It shocked me to be honest. If you saw how small and meek my kid is you would understand how mad that sounds.

I think badgers and QoG are right though. Much as I think both kids should be punished I don't want to escalate things and I am kind of thinking that yeah my son got the 2 day exclusion but he won the fight. So maybe that evens things out.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 14, 2012)

Badgers said:


> Many times


 
Pack a fair whack eh? 

Even a hard cover book if the corner whacks you can be pretty painful


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 14, 2012)

Maybe the teachers know something about other kid's circumstances that you don't and have turned a blind eye to his behaviour?


----------



## Badgers (Oct 14, 2012)

Mate. I think the other kid should have been punished (perhaps to the same level perhaps not) but it might do more good to point out to your lad that sometimes life isn't fair and you hope he learns from it. 

I was tiny at school (nickname was hamster not badgers ) and did a lot of scrapping. Some won, some lost, some got caught and bollocked, some not. It was also VERY rare I told the 'whole truth' about the circumstances to parents or teachers


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Oct 14, 2012)

dylans said:


> It could be argued that assault with a bag is assault with a weapon. The dictionary definition of a weapon is "_an instrument used to attack_" Anything can a weapon if used to hurt someone.The bag did hurt him and he had a red bruise on his cheek when he got home but yeah kicking him in the head was pretty extreme I agree. It shocked me to be honest. If you saw how small and meek my kid is you would understand how mad that sounds.
> 
> I think badgers and QoG are right though. Much as I think both kids should be punished I don't want to escalate things and I am kind of thinking that yeah my son got the 2 day exclusion but he won the fight. So maybe that evens things out.


Also the other boy may have been given a talking too but no further action taken iyswim.

It's a tricky situation and a bit damned if you do damned if you don't. Hope it works out whatever you decide


----------



## dylans (Oct 14, 2012)

Vintage Paw said:


> I'm a bit of a 'justice at any cost' kind of person in these situations (for better or worse) so I'd be more inclined to bring the subject up calmly with the head when you see them, but I don't have kids and I don't know if I'd think differently were I actually in that situation.


 
I am too and that's why I have been struggling with this for the past few days. On the one hand I don't want my kid to think violence is a good response to a situation but on the other I am not going to tell him not to fight back if attacked. But... being a parent has taught me to pick my battles and the most important thing is that my son gets back to school and back to his education. So.. I am trying to convince myself to bite my tongue (i'm not doing a great job of it and I keep changing my mind - hence this thread)

TBH I think he shocked himself a bit by his response, he is not at all a macho kid. He's a geek and a bookworm and I think he knows he went too far.


----------



## Badgers (Oct 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:
			
		

> Pack a fair whack eh?
> 
> Even a hard cover book if the corner whacks you can be pretty painful



Yes. I have had many bad head injuries caused by myself, other people and by many implements.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 14, 2012)

dylans said:


> TBH I think he shocked himself a bit by his response, he is not at all a macho kid. He's a geek and a bookworm and I think he knows he went too far.


 
Well that's good, hopefully it'll mean he'll be more restrained next time and just erm... give him a gentlemanly thump 

or walk away (although admittedly, that's a bit difficult on a bus)


----------



## Corax (Oct 14, 2012)

Sounds like your son got off lightly IMO, if "kicked him in the head" is as bad as it sounds. That's the type of thing that lands people in jail when they're older.

However, I agree with what you're saying. The other kid initiated the violence, and although he went too far your son could legitimately claim he was acting in self-defence. There's no way he should have got off scot-free, and the first thing that comes to my mind is a suspicion that the fear-of-litigation culture that's pervasive in education may have played a part in that decision.



Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Doesn't sound like zero tolerance approach if other kid's not been punished


Absolutely. The message the school are giving is that only 'extreme' violence is punished. If they really had a zero-tolerance stance then both kids would be receiving punishment, proportionate to their behaviour.

Having said that, there are sometimes other factors in play. There was a kid in my son's year (8 years old now, 6/7 at the time) who frequently punched other kids, kicked them, and attempted to strangle them. Normally, I'd expect the boy to have been punished, suspended, expelled, possibly put down. The lad's background was a huge factor in his behaviour though. He'd come from a hellish environment of drugs, alcohol, and violence, and been taken from his parents by social. He was living with foster parents who were doing all they could to give him a loving and secure home, and turn his life around. He got many, many more chances than my son would have been given, and I think that's only right.

Depends what the head teacher is like. If it was me, I know I could go in and have a chat with him, be honest about my feelings about the situation, and know that the head would be honest and reasonable in response. I did just that when the boy I've mentioned strangled him, and he explained about the other kid's background (which he told me he shouldn't have, technically), but promised to ask all the staff to keep a close eye on my boy to ensure it didn't happen again.  But that's cause he's a decent bloke, and treats parents with respect. There are some teachers out there who do nothing but talk down to parents as though they're also children, and having a conversation with one of those may do nothing but leave you feeling more angry and wanting to kick them in the head as well.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 14, 2012)

Corax said:


> Having said that, there are sometimes other factors in play. There was a kid in my son's year (8 years old now, 6/7 at the time) who frequently punched other kids, kicked them, and attempted to strangle them. Normally, I'd expect the boy to have been punished, suspended, expelled, possibly put down. The lad's background was a huge factor in his behaviour though. He's come from a hellish environment of drugs, alcohol, and violence, and been taken from his parents by social. He was living with foster parents who were doing all they could to give him a loving and secure home, and turn his life around. He got many, many more chances than my son would have been given, and I think that's only right.


 
I agree.  See my post at 12


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 14, 2012)

It does sound unfair. Perhaps a quiet word with the headteacher is in order?

Kicking in the head is pretty serious, even in self-defence. Not good. But your son (from what you've said) was provoked and hit back, as many would.

I'm somewhat intrigued that the school got involved if this wasn't on school property or on a school bus.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 14, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> It does sound unfair. Perhaps a quiet word with the headteacher is in order?
> 
> Kicking in the head is pretty serious, even in self-defence. Not good. But your son (from what you've said) was provoked and hit back, as many would.
> 
> I'm somewhat intrigued that the school got involved if this wasn't on school property or on a school bus.


 
They're wearing the school uniform (maybe)?


----------



## dylans (Oct 14, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> It does sound unfair. Perhaps a quiet word with the headteacher is in order?
> 
> Kicking in the head is pretty serious, even in self-defence. Not good. But your son (from what you've said) was provoked and hit back, as many would.
> 
> I'm somewhat intrigued that the school got involved if this wasn't on school property or on a school bus.


Because it was on the bus home from school. Part of the school anti bullying policy and something I agree with incidentally. I feel better knowing that my son is protected from bullying on the way home.  I think this is the schools point really. If they provide protection then there is no need for my son to respond to an assault. He is supposed to report it to the school. I get that and in general I think its a good policy but its easier said than done when someone smacks you. 

Yeah kicking someone in the head sounds really bad I know. and this is why I cannot object to him being excluded. I think it sounds worse than it was though. Its not like the kid was on the floor getting kicked in the head and he wasn't really hurt.  They were fighting over the bus seats and my son stood on the seat and kicked him in the head (still sounds pretty fucking extreme to me tbh)


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 14, 2012)

dylans said:


> Because it was on the bus home from school. Part of the school anti bullying policy and something I agree with incidentally. I feel better knowing that my son is protected from bullying on the way home. I think this is the schools point really. If they provide protection then there is no need for my son to respond to an assault. He is supposed to report it to the school. I get that and in general I think its a good policy but its easier said than done when someone smacks you.
> 
> Yeah kicking someone in the head sounds really bad I know. and this is why I cannot object to him being excluded. I think it sounds worse than it was though. Its not like the kid was on the floor getting kicked in the head and he wasn't really hurt. They were fighting over the bus seats and my son stood on the seat and kicked him in the head (still sounds pretty fucking extreme to me tbh)


But how is your son being protected if someone whacks him in the head with a schoolbag? Or is the school's idea of of protection excluding the one is attacked rather than the attacker?


----------



## geminisnake (Oct 14, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> I'm somewhat intrigued that the school got involved if this wasn't on school property or on a school bus.


 
Iirc the school is responsible for the pupil until they reach home, or they certainly used to be(this may be a down south thing). Plus if the pupil is wearing uniform it reflects badly on the school.
I would mention while at the school that I wasn't impressed that only one child had been punished particularly when he was NOT the instigator. Having said that I would have been on the phone the next day to create merry hell. Son was bullied a number of times at school and only ever hit back once


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 14, 2012)

It sounds a bit unfair, but it's hard to say for anyone who wasn't actually there.

But in any case, not worth worrying about.  It's no big deal, don't make it one.


----------



## High Voltage (Oct 14, 2012)

It's not fair, but I'll bet that the other kid won't pick on him again

He's learnt many a valuable life lesson:-

Life ain't fair
If you're gonna hit someone make damn sure that they don't get up to hit you
THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES TO EVERYTHING


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 14, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> It sounds a bit unfair, but it's hard to say for anyone who wasn't actually there.
> 
> But in any case, not worth worrying about. It's no big deal, don't make it one.


I think it's worth worrying if the school isn't going to apply their own policies consistently.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 14, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> I think it's worth worrying if the school isn't going to apply their own policies consistently.


 
I doubt any school does, tbh.

This won't have a detrimental impact on his post-school life at all.  And if anything it will enhance his school life.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 14, 2012)

High Voltage said:


> If you're gonna hit someone make damn sure that they don't get up to hit you


 
That's a very stupid rule.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 14, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> I doubt any school does, tbh.
> 
> This won't have a detrimental impact on his post-school life at all. And if anything it will enhance his school life.


 
I agree.  As much as he might regret his behaviour, doubt other kid will pick on him again.  Regardless of other lad's circumstances, it may be that this isn't the first fight he's started, so he may too have learned a lesson


----------



## High Voltage (Oct 14, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> That's a very stupid rule.


 
Why?

Would you rather give someone a stern tap and hope that they don't then beat the living shit out of you?

Would you rather rely on withering repartee? bear in mind that you've already been hit

IT IS NOT COMPULSORY TO HIT SOMEONE - merely that if you are going to hit someone, make it count

And Rule 3 still applies


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 14, 2012)

High Voltage said:


> Why?


 
Because it means you have to kill everyone you fight.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Oct 14, 2012)

If you like 5 of my posts, put a tenner toward server fund, and send me a dirty story about me and @wayward bob trapped in a lift with only the contents of her grocery shopping to keep us pccupied, then I will find this other kid, the one whos still at school, and I will make fun of him in front of all his mates. How old are they? 10? 12? Kids are easy to take the piss out of, and it makes me feel big in my head, so everyones a winner, right?

The offers open.


----------



## geminisnake (Oct 14, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Because it means you have to kill everyone you fight.


 
Nah, you just need to hit them hard enough to give you time to walk away. It's not rocket science


----------



## High Voltage (Oct 14, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Because it means you have to kill everyone you fight.


 
Interesting extrapolation

OR

They're not in any hurry to get back up and have another go - but you knew that already, didn't you? - I really, really hope you did know this

And Rule 3 still applies


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Oct 14, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Because it means you have to kill everyone you fight.



If you just give em a couple of kicks to the goolies, a punch in the wind pipe, and a good old fashioned chinese burn, they wont get up soon, but you probably wont have killed them...


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 14, 2012)

Jon-of-arc said:


> If you just give em a couple of kicks to the goolies, a punch in the wind pipe, and a good old fashioned chinese burn, they wont get up soon, but you probably wont have killed them...


 
He said "make sure they don't get up again," so at the very least you'd have to knock him unconscious.  Can you imagine how long it would take a 12 year-old to knock someone unconscious?  He'd have been more than excluded for that I believe.


----------



## High Voltage (Oct 14, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> He said "make sure they don't get up again," so at the very least you'd have to knock him unconscious. Can you imagine how long it would take a 12 year-old to knock someone unconscious? He'd have been more than excluded for that I believe.


 
Phil. It's alright if I call you Phil, isn't it?

Let's play two little 12 year old boys here.

One of us whacks the other of us with a bag. It REALLY fucking hurts.

The remaining one of us is mightily pissed off about this and trips the whackyer up, giving him a twat as he goes down - a really, REALLY good twat btw

Whichever of us it is on the floor it by now, no doubt, crying for his mum

I then stand over you and tell you, in no uncertain terms, that if you get up you'll get a whole lot more of that and that if you know what's good for you, you won't get up any time soon

You, being a bright person, listen to my reasoned argument and stay sat on your arse

No-one has died. No-one has been knocked unconscious. I'm not going to jail and somehow the world is still turning.

See.

And me being a really bright 12 year old knows in my heart of hearts that there now won't be a next time

And you being an equally bright 12 year old will pay more attention with your school bag


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 14, 2012)

Well you say that now, but this is what you said before:



High Voltage said:


> If you're gonna hit someone make damn sure that they don't get up to hit you


 
And I suggest that the this implies a scenario very different from the one you describe above.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 14, 2012)

High Voltage said:


> <snip>
> 
> If you're gonna hit someone make damn sure that they don't get up to hit you
> THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES TO EVERYTHING


 
FWIW knocking somebody out isn't harmless - too much risk of serious head injury.  Yes, you see apparently harmless knockout punches in westerns and action films, and anything with superheroes, none of those are real life.  

The same goes for inflicting other injuries (not to the head) which would be bad enough to stop somebody getting up.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 14, 2012)

High Voltage said:


> You, being a bright person, listen to my reasoned argument and stay sat on your arse


 
No I wouldn't.  I'd get up and hit you again--or at least many people would.  So you are now just contradicting yourself.


----------



## renegadechicken (Oct 14, 2012)

I read High's post as hit them hard enough to hurt them that they wont come right back at you - that was what my father taught me, when he taught me to stand up for myself, hit them hard and make it count so they back off.

My father was a bastard though and also taught me that anything goes, anything lying around was good enough to pick up and hit them with, if they went down give them a few kicks etc. He taught by example too

eta..i'm a fully paid up tree hugger since my 28th birthday


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 14, 2012)

does the school accept that the hitting with the bag was a deliberate attack? Or is there some grey area that the other kid is perhaps maintaining that it was accidental which the school is having to give him the benefit of the doubt over?


----------



## renegadechicken (Oct 14, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> No I wouldn't. I'd get up and hit you again--or at least many people would. So you are now just contradicting yourself.


You weren't hit hard enough then.

Back on topic though...it does seem strange that both boys weren't punished. I could see the logic with the school bag hitter getting say 1 day suspension and your son getting two due to the kicks to the head, but at least there would be reason to that.


----------



## High Voltage (Oct 14, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> No I wouldn't. I'd get up and hit you again--or at least many people would. So you are now just contradicting yourself.


 
Then obviously, you weren't hit hard enough, but we're talking about 12 year old boys here, not a Muhammad Ali clone - but eventually, one of us would learn, as has happened to the young lad in question - and the consequences of his actions are he's been expelled for 2 days

Or

He could simply have taken the beating and then the next day, no doubt, he'd have had another beating and on and on and on

Whatever


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 14, 2012)

renegadechicken said:


> I read High's post as hit them hard enough to hurt them that they wont come right back at you - that was what my father taught me, when he taught me to stand up for myself, hit them hard and make it count so they back off.
> 
> My father was a bastard though and also taught me that anything goes, anything lying around was good enough to pick up and hit them with, if they went down give them a few kicks etc. He taught by example too


 
I rest my case.  It is a stupid rule.  QED.


----------



## High Voltage (Oct 14, 2012)

Greebo said:


> FWIW knocking somebody out isn't harmless - too much risk of serious head injury. Yes, you see apparently harmless knockout punches in westerns and action films, and anything with superheroes, none of those are real life.
> 
> The same goes for inflicting other injuries (not to the head) which would be bad enough to stop somebody getting up.


 
Where do I say to knock the other person out?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 14, 2012)

High Voltage said:


> Then obviously, you weren't hit hard enough, but we're talking about 12 year old boys here, not a Muhammad Ali clone - but eventually, one of us would learn, as has happened to the young lad in question - and the consequences of his actions are he's been expelled for 2 days


 
What are you on about? We've no idea whether either kid has "learned" anything at all. How long do you think it would take a 12 year-old to back off from a feud? 3 months, 6 months, sound plausible to me.  It's not worth it. And by your rule, every single fight would have to be practically to the death--especially for 12 year-olds. No 12 year-old can knock someone out by punching alone.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 14, 2012)

High Voltage said:


> He could simply have taken the beating and then the next day, no doubt, he'd have had another beating and on and on and on


 
No, that's not the alternative. But your aim should be to minimize the violence necessary, not maximalize it as you suggest.  That's what I'll tell my son when the time comes...


----------



## Greebo (Oct 14, 2012)

High Voltage said:


> Where do I say to knock the other person out?


You wanted the hit to make the person unable to get up. Maybe you haven't seen anybody virtually unable to feel pain because of the adrenaline, but even a kick in the crotch won't keep them down for more than a couple of seconds.  That same adrenaline is going to make 'reasoning' with them a bitch, as adrenaline doesn't let you listen or think.


----------



## High Voltage (Oct 14, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> What are you on about? We've no idea whether either kid has "learned" anything at all. How long do you think it would take a 12 year-old to back off from a feud? 3 months, 6 months, sound plausible to me. It's not worth it. And by your rule, every single fight would have to be practically to the death--especially for 12 year-olds. No 12 year-old can knock someone out by punching alone.


 

How long do I think a 12 year old would take to forget a feud? If it's anything like I remember being a kid, about no seconds flat

And by my rule IF YOU'RE GOING TO FIGHT (and that's the important bit here) IF YOU'RE GOING TO FIGHT - then, too damn right, fight to win and don't worry how you win - but remember THERE'S CONSEQUENCES

And you're right - there's very very few 12 year old who can knock someone out by punching alone - but I've not mentioned knocking out, you've made the leap to knocking people out - what a violent world you must live in


----------



## trashpony (Oct 14, 2012)

Do you *know* for a fact that there have been no sanctions against the other kid? How?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 14, 2012)

High Voltage said:


> And you're right - there's very very few 12 year old who can knock someone out by punching alone - but I've not mentioned knocking out, you've made the leap to knocking people out -


 
THey could probably whack 'em hard enough for them to lose their balance and they could end up cracking their skull on a pavement though


----------



## High Voltage (Oct 14, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> No, that's not the alternative. But your aim should be to minimize the violence necessary, not maximalize it as you suggest. That's what I'll tell my son when the time comes...


 
No. I'm talking about focussing and concentrating the violence, to use the least amount necessary for the other child (remember, we're talking about 12 year old boys here, not mutant, ninja, death droids) (queue: 12 year old stabbed to death in row over XXXXXXXXX link to Red Top Tabloid) to think to himself that life is a lot easier to stay sat on his arse


----------



## High Voltage (Oct 14, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> THey could probably whack 'em hard enough for them to lose their balance and they could end up cracking their skull on a pavement though


 
Absolutely. And Rule 3 still applies


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 14, 2012)

High Voltage said:


> And by my rule IF YOU'RE GOING TO FIGHT (and that's the important bit here) IF YOU'RE GOING TO FIGHT - then, too damn right, fight to win and don't worry how you win - but remember THERE'S CONSEQUENCES


 
Yes indeed there are, and for anyone daft enough to fight with the ridiculous all-or-nothing, anything-goes attitude you suggest those consequences will very soon include prison.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 14, 2012)

High Voltage said:


> Absolutely. And Rule 3 still applies


 
And you get done for murder.  Genius.


----------



## High Voltage (Oct 14, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Yes indeed there are, and for anyone daft enough to fight with the ridiculous all-or-nothing, anything-goes attitude you suggest those consequences will very soon include prison.


 
You must live in a real scary world, where it is but a step from two 12 year olds having a scrap to murder, mayhem and a prison sentence - I'm glad I don't live there - and for what it's worth in all of my time in school I had <3 fights - I was bullied a bit until I stood up to it, then it stopped. Yes, I've stuck the boot into someone but also showed restraint in a fight, bizarrely waiting until I was hit in the face before I stopped using body punches and hit them in the face - and somehow, no-one died


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 14, 2012)

Your kid has the right to self defence and no school policy can cancel that out.
 If the other child has not been punished for starting the fight by assaulting your kid with a weapon ( A school bag could  several Kg and would be classed as a weapon by the cops). Your just going to have to accept the school is staffed by wankers and swallow your pride 
as you can't argue with the school without effecting your child. Imho.


----------



## High Voltage (Oct 14, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> And you get done for murder. Genius.


 
Possibly Child-slaughter - they're 12 remember


----------



## Greebo (Oct 14, 2012)

High Voltage said:


> How long do I think a 12 year old would take to forget a feud? If it's anything like I remember being a kid, about no seconds flat
> 
> And by my rule IF YOU'RE GOING TO FIGHT (and that's the important bit here) IF YOU'RE GOING TO FIGHT - then, too damn right, fight to win and don't worry how you win - but remember THERE'S CONSEQUENCES<snip>


Count yourself very lucky you never met 12 year old me - feuds were not so easily forgotten.  And one of the consequences of a fight with the wrong person, even if you win it, even with next to no apparent harm, can be consequences you won't be able to anticipate.


----------



## Thora (Oct 14, 2012)

Do you know for sure that the other child wasn't punished at all?  I mean, maybe the school decided that whacking someone in the face with a bag = detention/losing house points/a stern talking to or something, whereas kicking someone in the head = exclusion.


----------



## High Voltage (Oct 14, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Count yourself very lucky you never met 12 year old me - feuds were not so easily forgotten. And one of the consequences of a fight with the wrong person, even if you win it, even with next to no apparent harm, can be consequences you won't be able to anticipate.


 

But you admit that there are consequences - Rule 3

And Rule 2 clearly starts with an IF - at no time do I state you MUST FIGHT

And the problem with having a fight with the "wrong" person is that you, more often than not, only find out that they're the wrong person after you've had the fight


----------



## Greebo (Oct 14, 2012)

High Voltage said:


> But you admit that there are consequences - Rule 3
> 
> And Rule 2 clearly starts with an IF - at no time do I state you MUST FIGHT
> 
> And the problem with having a fight with the "wrong" person is that you, more often than not, only find out that they're the wrong person after you've had the fight


Bear in mind there are problems with gameplay (which is what your 3 rules are):  Not everyone you go up against has the same gameplay, some have none at all, some will simply refuse to recognise the concept at all.  You can't expect every 12 year old boy to behave, reason, think, feel, or fight as you'd like to think you would.


----------



## Sweet FA (Oct 14, 2012)

dylanredefined said:


> assaulting your kid with a weapon...the school is staffed by wankers a...you can't argue with the school...


 Christ, are you a Daily Mail journo?


Anyway, ignoring High Voltage's ninja mayhem, extreme prejudice response and to answer the OP; sounds like you're pretty spot on dylans. I'd draw a line as QoG, Corax and others have suggested - from what you say, I suspect you know this is the reasonable thing to do too, (despite any parents' natural desire to protect their offspring against all comers). 

What happened has clearly shocked you - the attack, your child's response and the seeming unfairness of the punishment. Out of those 3, it feels like your child kicking this kid in the head has shocked you most. How does he feel about it? I guess you've talked to him about his response? Taking aside the school's decision, I reckon what's most important about the whole event is how your boy feels about it, how he'd respond in a similar situation and that he knows you're behind him and will help prepare him for this type of shit happening again. Which it will.

Fuck, this whole issue of how to deal with violence is one which taxes me as a teacher. On one hand, I preach 'tell a teacher', 'don't hit anyone' and all that. On the other, I know that if you don't hit someone back, you're in danger of becoming a victim. Still haven't quite worked it out tbh.


----------



## dylans (Oct 14, 2012)

Thora said:


> Do you know for sure that the other child wasn't punished at all? I mean, maybe the school decided that whacking someone in the face with a bag = detention/losing house points/a stern talking to or something, whereas kicking someone in the head = exclusion.


Yeah I do know. I talked to his form tutor yesterday and a couple of his class mates today. 

I think they have decided things in the terms  you suggest but it is wrong imo. Ignoring who started the violence is to completely ignore context and responsibility. As far as I am concerned you lose the right to cry foul when you launch an unprovoked assault on someone. If you don't want to risk a kick in the head then don't throw the first punch.


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 14, 2012)

Sweet FA said:


> Christ, are you a Daily Mail journo?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Typical teacher dare question the school and your an obvious idiot fascist


----------



## Sweet FA (Oct 14, 2012)

dylanredefined said:


> Typical teacher dare question the school and your an obvious idiot fascist


Wow. Well done. You've managed to post something with absolutely no relation to what you said or to what I replied. Pillock.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 14, 2012)

dylans said:


> Yeah I do know. I talked to his form tutor yesterday and a couple of his class mates today.
> 
> I think they have decided things in the terms you suggest but it is wrong imo. Ignoring who started the violence is to completely ignore context and responsibility. As far as I am concerned you lose the right to cry foul when you launch an unprovoked assault on someone. If you don't want to risk a kick in the head then don't throw the first punch.


 
ok, wait a minute. setting aside the issue of the other kid, you son fought back out of *anger and frustration*, right? not self-defense. You might not want to give the impression you condone this (who knows, it might come back to bite you in the ass when he's a big teenager) 
I'm not saying that's what you're doing. But I'd say maybe let the other kid's parents deal with him, and you deal with your own kid.


----------



## silverfish (Oct 14, 2012)

Draw a line under it. Re-enforce your faith in the nipper and explain you'll always back him up, explain that kicking some one in the head is dangerous.

Send your nipper to boxing club, prevention is better than cure, it will give him physical confidence, reduce fear (The cause of most violence) discipline, confidence to walk away and worst case scenario the skills to stop someone hitting him.

When it becomes obvious to all his peers that he can look after himself shit like this won't happen. TBH it probaby won't happen again anyways after this incident.

I moved from school to school at that age and always got challenged by some halfwit but only once, its unfortunately what little shits do creating pecking orders etc and there are always going to be kids from chaotic back grounds unbalancing the playground karma


----------



## dylans (Oct 14, 2012)

Sweet FA said:


> Christ, are you a Daily Mail journo?
> 
> 
> Anyway, ignoring High Voltage's ninja mayhem, extreme prejudice response and to answer the OP; sounds like you're pretty spot on dylans. I'd draw a line as QoG, Corax and others have suggested - from what you say, I suspect you know this is the reasonable thing to do too, (despite any parents' natural desire to protect their offspring against all comers).
> ...


 
Well yeah it shocked me because it's so unlike him. I know all parents think their kid is a little angel and I don't think that but if you could see how small he is you would laugh at the idea of him beating anyone up let alone kicking someone in the head. I can't get my head around it. 

He's pretty cool about everything. He knows he lost it a bit and that his reaction was over the top. He had to write a statement at school and it was very heartfelt in his expression of regret. Thing is he is a very popular and respected student. He's top of his class in all subjects and had an absolutely perfect year last year. The teacher told me they couldn't believe it when the report came in that he had been involved in violence. I still can't either. 

What concerns me most, and what motivates me asking about the fairness of this decision is that I don't want him labelled as violent or as a trouble maker or anti social etc when he just isn't like that. I know for sure that if he hadn't been assaulted he would never have resorted to violence. I know my kid. There is just the two of us in our family and we are very tight. 

I agree with you about the dilemma. I just want him to go to school, study hard and come home, end of. I don't want any drama, especially stuff that can hurt his reputation and school chances. I want to say to him don't fight back and leave it to the school but I can't do that and I don't think its right to do so. Noone has the right to touch him and I know that I would go absolutely mad if I ever found out he had started a fight against anyone.  He does have the right to self defence  however and that means he has the right to hit anyone back who dares lay a hand on him. Whatever the school says and this is what is bugging me right now because it feels like he is being punished for defending himself because the school looks at the level of violence without looking at the cause of it. 

I just wish he hadn't kicked the kid in the head.


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 14, 2012)

Sweet FA said:


> Wow. Well done. You've managed to post something with absolutely no relation to what you said or to what I replied. Pillock.


    fuck off cunt


----------



## dylans (Oct 14, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> ok, wait a minute. setting aside the issue of the other kid, you son fought back out of *anger and frustration*, right? not self-defense. You might not want to give the impression you condone this (who knows, it might come back to bite you in the ass when he's a big teenager)
> I'm not saying that's what you're doing. But I'd say maybe let the other kid's parents deal with him, and you deal with your own kid.


Well yeah he did which is why I am not challenging his exclusion and why I can't support his actions. My only issue is not that he was punished but that that he was the ONLY one punished. When he didn't start the fight that just seems unfair and inappropriate. My kid didn't start the violence, he responded to it, albeit in a bit of a bonkers over the top way.


----------



## Sweet FA (Oct 14, 2012)

Aw mate, I really feel for you. From what you say, there are 2 issues here. The first is how he'll be viewed at school. On that front you'd have to hope that the school knows him well enough to know that it's a one off. If you're at all worried that he might get labelled then definitely talk to them; his class teacher and the head (who might not know him so well). 

The second issue; how to teach him to stand up for himself without resorting to beating the shit out of someone well...erm...dunno... Like I said, that's one I've not worked out myself yet. From the sound of it though, you're aware of all the issues surrounding it and are doing your best. Other posters must have been through this though - weeps maybe?


----------



## Sweet FA (Oct 14, 2012)

dylanredefined said:


> fuck off cunt


 Do you want a fight then? Bike sheds at break you big smell.


----------



## jakethesnake (Oct 14, 2012)

What silverfish said is pretty spot on. Boxing or some other martial arts will mean a more measured response if it happens again.


----------



## dylans (Oct 14, 2012)

jakethesnake said:


> What silverfish said is pretty spot on. Boxing or some other martial arts will mean a more measured response if it happens again.


I think that's a great idea. I'm looking into it right now.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 14, 2012)

dylans said:


> Well yeah he did which is why I am not challenging his exclusion and why I can't support his actions. My only issue is not that he was punished but that that he was the ONLY one punished. When he didn't start the fight that just seems unfair and inappropriate. My kid didn't start the violence, he responded to it, albeit in a bit of a bonkers over the top way.


 
The thing is, they made their decision. Maybe in hindsight they would have done differently, and maybe they will next time. 
But please remember that it's your son, and _you_ are and should be the major source of rules, morals, and discipline, not the school. If you can relax and just move ahead from here (and hopefully there won't be any more incidents like this anyway, RIGHT?) then I think this will blow over and you'll all be better off than if you make a big fuss now.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Oct 14, 2012)

Two things struck me about your OP dylans, when you say the cops and teachers were waiting for him did they not call you first to discuss? I would be pretty pissed off if my son was presented with a surprise police questioning and I wasn't there or aware of it.

I think that what I would do would be to accompany my boy to school and let the head teacher say whatever they wanted to say, whatever is usual after such a suspension (I would support the suspension because kicking I n the head, and particularly in the head, is too serious/dangerous to ignore), I would then ask to speak to the headteacher alone and express quite clearly that I was disappointed at how one child has been held totally to blame for this and if the police were called in without my knowledge I would complain about it. So I would let my son know that I supported it and respect the school's decision but I would air any grievances I had about the way the school has gone about it and concerns that he would be treated differently.

I think you're handling it very well and reasonably by they way.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 14, 2012)

The kid who started it was punished by having his head kicked in in front of a bus full of kids. Maybe he will think twice before starting fights in the future. Hopefully your soon will learn to show a little restraint in future

It may not be fair but it is responsible and there is an opportunity for both kids to learn.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 14, 2012)

Okay - if the other kid has seriously not had any punishment whatsoever, I think it'd be worth talking to the head about their 'zero tolerance' policy towards physical violence because it's either zero or it's a 'little bit is okay'.

Having said that, your son may have been taunting him for being a thicko or something - children rarely tell the story in such a way where they come out worse IME. So if it turns out that actually your son was using the skills he had at his disposal (being academic, bright, popular with the teachers) to put down the other kid (who I'm assuming fares less well on that score) to put the other kid down, then that kid may well have been using the skills he had at *his* disposal iyswim. This is pure conjecture of course but I've seen less verbally able boys resort to physical stuff when they just don't have the vocabulary to express themselves. This is not an issue for your son which is why I'd imagine they've thrown the book at hi,

Also, from what you've written in your subsequent posts, your son sounds like exactly the sort of kid where this sort of punishment is going to have a massive effect on him - I doubt he'll ever do anything like this again.


----------



## Corax (Oct 14, 2012)

dylans said:


> Well yeah it shocked me because it's so unlike him. I know all parents think their kid is a little angel and I don't think that but if you could see how small he is you would laugh at the idea of him beating anyone up let alone kicking someone in the head. I can't get my head around it.


Actually dylans, I wonder if the fact that it's out of character and unlikely may go some way to explaining how extreme his behaviour was.

If you're a kid who knows that they can defend themselves well, then you can knock someone down and then leave it, without losing the plot. If you're not confident that way, then when you do finally lash out then it's only when you've been pushed as far as you can go, the adrenaline takes over, and you lose control. Red mist, iykwim. Happened to me, and I saw it happen to plenty of others. I'm sure everyone can remember a time at school when the picked-on kid went "psycho". Your son may not be picked on, but if he's not confident in himself physically then that kind of confrontation will still be just as scary and the reaction could be the same. Someone else suggested boxing lessons. Personally, I'd get him doing some ju-jitsu as that's more likely to be useful in a real scrap. But either way, a bit of martial sports may be a good idea to build his sense of physical confidence and security.

Hope you know what I mean. Comes with the caveat that I don't know your boy so it's based on pure speculation,  and therefore may be utter cobblers.


----------



## dylans (Oct 14, 2012)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Two things struck me about your OP dylans, when you say the cops and teachers were waiting for him did they not call you first to discuss? I would be pretty pissed off if my son was presented with a surprise police questioning and I wasn't there or aware of it.
> 
> I think that what I would do would be to accompany my boy to school and let the head teacher say whatever they wanted to say, whatever is usual after such a suspension (I would support the suspension because kicking I n the head, and particularly in the head, is too serious/dangerous to ignore), I would then ask to speak to the headteacher alone and express quite clearly that I was disappointed at how one child has been held totally to blame for this and if the police were called in without my knowledge I would complain about it. So I would let my son know that I supported it and respect the school's decision but I would air any grievances I had about the way the school has gone about it and concerns that he would be treated differently.
> 
> I think you're handling it very well and reasonably by they way.


 
 My son had told me what happened the night before when he came home and we talked about it. I thought that was the end of it and so did he. Then, that afternoon I got a call from the school saying the cops had been and my kid was in "isolation" and had been excluded and would be sent home with a letter. They had called earlier apparently but I was out. So my kid had been stuck in the "isolation unit half the day before they could get in touch with me.

I can't really complain about the cops thing however because I have a nagging feeling that my son's form tutor (whose a good guy) had personally played a role persuaded the cops and the kids parents to leave it to the school.  He didn't say so but that's the impression I got. Of course if they had pressed charges I would claim self defence and immediately press charges of assault against their son so it would be a lose/lose situation

This pisses me off though. Little johnny picks a fight with my kid, attacks him, loses the fight he started  and then runs home and mommy calls the cops on my son. I'm sure they neglected to mention the bit where their kid attacked mine first


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 14, 2012)

i did ask earlier - you said that the facts had all been agreed by the school, but have the other lad and or the school fully agreed to the interpretation of the attack with the bag as a deliberate attack?  The other lad isn't trying to spin it as an accident, no?  That he swung his bag over his shoulder as he turned around to leave and caught your lad on the face?

cos if everyone agrees he hit him with the bag on purpose, and a member of staff at the school has said that the other lad will face no punishment of any kind, then i am a little bit mystified.


----------



## geminisnake (Oct 14, 2012)

dylans said:


> I think that's a great idea. I'm looking into it right now.


 
It's only a great idea if your son wants to go. I tried to get mine to go to a few things but he truly wasn't interested. He hit back once and was more upset about that than the bullying tbh. I was concerned if he ever lashed out in frustration he would behave like your son did.


----------



## dylans (Oct 14, 2012)

spanglechick said:


> i did ask earlier - you said that the facts had all been agreed by the school, but have the other lad and or the school fully agreed to the interpretation of the attack with the bag as a deliberate attack? The other lad isn't trying to spin it as an accident, no? That he swung his bag over his shoulder as he turned around to leave and caught your lad on the face?
> 
> cos if everyone agrees he hit him with the bag on purpose, and a member of staff at the school has said that the other lad will face no punishment of any kind, then i am a little bit mystified.


The facts of the story are very well established yes. Not just from my kid and his but also from some class mate witnesses who also made statements. There is no question that the kid attacked my son and that it was premeditated. The kid went down stairs, sat down their for 5 minutes or so, came back up, went straight up to my son and smacked him in the face with his bag. My son went bonkers and kicked his head in.

I haven't spoken to the kid or the parents obviously but I have no reason to assume they dispute the facts of the incident. I the conversation I had yesterday with the head of year she accepts that the kid started the incident and that he assaulted my son first. They seem to think that the level of violence exhibited by my son is the major issue.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Oct 14, 2012)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Two things struck me about your OP dylans, when you say the cops and teachers were waiting for him did they not call you first to discuss? I would be pretty pissed off if my son was presented with a surprise police questioning and I wasn't there or aware of it.
> 
> I think that what I would do would be to accompany my boy to school and let the head teacher say whatever they wanted to say, whatever is usual after such a suspension (I would support the suspension because kicking I n the head, and particularly in the head, is too serious/dangerous to ignore), I would then ask to speak to the headteacher alone and express quite clearly that I was disappointed at how one child has been held totally to blame for this and if the police were called in without my knowledge I would complain about it. So I would let my son know that I supported it and respect the school's decision but I would air any grievances I had about the way the school has gone about it and concerns that he would be treated differently.
> 
> I think you're handling it very well and reasonably by they way.


good post shifty


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 14, 2012)

dylans said:


> The facts of the story are very well established yes. Not just from my kid and his but also from some class mate witnesses who also made statements. There is no question that the kid attacked my son and that it was premeditated. *The kid went down stairs, sat down their for 5 minutes or so, came back up, went straight up to my son and smacked him in the face with his bag. My son went bonkers and kicked his head in.*
> 
> I haven't spoken to the kid or the parents obviously but I have no reason to assume they dispute the facts of the incident. I the conversation I had yesterday with the head of year she accepts that the kid started the incident and that he assaulted my son first. They seem to think that the level of violence exhibited by my son is the major issue.


 
I thought it happened on the bus, though? I'm not doubting the story, just confused.


----------



## dylans (Oct 14, 2012)

I've grilled my son about the details of the fight. It went like this. Kid came up the stairs and smacked my son in the face with his bag and then calmly sat down. It seemed he assumed my son would just take it. My son, angry got up from his seat, walked up to him and attempted to punch him. Kid kicked out at him from the bus seat, keeping him away from hitting him with his feet. My son then stood on the chair behind and kicked him in the head 3 times. Kid blubbed. My son went back to his seat and sat down.Kid spent the rest of the bus journey blubbing, sulking in his chair. Nothing more was said. Kid's stop arrived and kid got off. The end


----------



## dylans (Oct 14, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> I thought it happened on the bus, though? I'm not doubting the story, just confused.


double decker bus


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 14, 2012)

dylans said:


> double decker bus


 
ah, just got it  
we don't have those here, so you can see why i was confused. Also, was thinking it was a school bus.


----------



## stuff_it (Oct 14, 2012)

Corax said:


> Sounds like your son got off lightly IMO, if "kicked him in the head" is as bad as it sounds. That's the type of thing that lands people in jail when they're older.
> 
> However, I agree with what you're saying. The other kid initiated the violence, and although he went too far your son could legitimately claim he was acting in self-defence. There's no way he should have got off scot-free, and the first thing that comes to my mind is a suspicion that the fear-of-litigation culture that's pervasive in education may have played a part in that decision.
> 
> ...


That was my initial thought, that the other lad might not come from a home that they would want to suspend him to if at all possible.



Miss Caphat said:


> ah, just got it
> we don't have those here, so you can see why i was confused. Also, was thinking it was a school bus.


School busses here are almost 100% normal busses or coaches (long distance type busses) with a sign propped in the window with a picture of children on it.


----------



## purenarcotic (Oct 14, 2012)

dylans said:


> Well yeah it shocked me because it's so unlike him. I know all parents think their kid is a little angel and I don't think that but if you could see how small he is you would laugh at the idea of him beating anyone up let alone kicking someone in the head. I can't get my head around it.
> 
> He's pretty cool about everything. He knows he lost it a bit and that his reaction was over the top. He had to write a statement at school and it was very heartfelt in his expression of regret. Thing is he is a very popular and respected student. He's top of his class in all subjects and had an absolutely perfect year last year. The teacher told me they couldn't believe it when the report came in that he had been involved in violence. I still can't either.
> 
> ...


 
Maybe it was a release of stuff. Hormones are kicking in, it's hard work being a 'perfect' student, there's a lot of pressure on teenagers from fellow peers, teachers, society, parents etc. And much of this is all totally unconscious.

Not trying to say he's miserable or anything like that, I'm sure he isn't, just that losing it may not be so inexplicable.

These things happen, I am sure he won't be labelled; he won't be the first kid to kick off unusually and hopefully this will be the last. Hopefully the other kid will think on a bit too. Both hitting someone round the head and kicking somebody in the head can be fatal. It could be that the school are considering this angle, but have thought hitting somebody in the face is not as potentially dangerous as kicking somebody in the head.

I do agree with you though that the school should have taken some further action with the other pupil, but we don't know that pupils' situation, which may well influence the school in deciding what to do about what happened.


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 14, 2012)

dylans said:


> The facts of the story are very well established yes. Not just from my kid and his but also from some class mate witnesses who also made statements. There is no question that the kid attacked my son and that it was premeditated. The kid went down stairs, sat down their for 5 minutes or so, came back up, went straight up to my son and smacked him in the face with his bag. My son went bonkers and kicked his head in.
> 
> I haven't spoken to the kid or the parents obviously but I have no reason to assume they dispute the facts of the incident. I the conversation I had yesterday with the head of year she accepts that the kid started the incident and that he assaulted my son first. They seem to think that the level of violence exhibited by my son is the major issue.


then i think you do have a right to ask why the aggressor has faced no punishment at all.  I wouldn't expect an exclusion for the other lad, necessarily, but I would expect a day or half day in supervision/isolation, and a period 'on report' on his return.  Obv all schools work slightly differently, and there may be contexts which would demand a different outcome*... but that's what i'd expect at our school for someone who smashes someone in the face with a bag.

*background is one, but also if the child is in regular and serious trouble, already being closely monitored by the pastoral team, events like this can be dealt with as part of an ongoing  sanctions programme, which may often be 'invisible' to students and uninvolved staff.


----------



## dylans (Oct 14, 2012)

I'm glad I posted this here. Its been on my mind over the past few days as you can imagine. So its good to get some feedback and unsullied perspectives on this. So big thanks to everyone for your thoughtful replies. 

I know what I am going to do. I think shifty's post (excellent post btw) had it right.



> _I think that what I would do would be to accompany my boy to school and let the head teacher say whatever they wanted to say, whatever is usual after such a suspension (I would support the suspension because kicking I n the head, and particularly in the head, is too serious/dangerous to ignore), I would then ask to speak to the headteacher alone and express quite clearly that I was disappointed at how one child has been held totally to blame for this and if the police were called in without my knowledge I would complain about it. So I would let my son know that I supported it and respect the school's decision but I would air any grievances I had about the way the school has gone about it and concerns that he would be treated differently._


 
Yup


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 14, 2012)

I think what's actually happened is that the school is not really enforcing their "zero tolerance" policy against violence, but that they are enforcing their "we don't want to be sued by parents whose kids end up in the hospital" policy. 
what your kid did _could_ have landed the other kid in the ER. This is why he's being punished in this particular case. 
I think if it wasn't for this factor, you'd have every right to go in and try to advocate for your son. 

I hope I'm not coming across as a douche, it's just that since the first post, my gut instinct has been saying very loudly that you should leave this alone.


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 14, 2012)

If the meeting is on Tuesday, early Monday I would phone the receptionist and leave a message for the Head saying if needs to have a quick word with you before the meeting, leave your mobile number and say you are also willing to pop in if needed - you understand he's busy.   It's open, fair and gives a couple of adults the chance to talk about it and weigh each other up.   These things are just as stressful for the school staff as they are to the protective/embarrassed/multi-complex parents.

I wouldn't bring up blame or punishment, your son won and is a bit of a legend for a wee while and has been mentioned he'll get more peace later. Nothing wrong with that as long as he doesn't turn into a serial killer, but we're probably all agreed on that.

However 

I don't know your son, the real life emphasis, your good self or anything to do with it. I'm just posting because this happened to me a few times with two of my kids, that doesn't mean that my experience relates to yours or anyone else's.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 14, 2012)

Maybe not suspending the other boy was some sort of deal on the police being called off and letting the school deal with it?


----------



## purenarcotic (Oct 15, 2012)

It could also be that because this was your son's first time of doing something like this that they really want to shock him into not doing it again.


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 15, 2012)

i'm obviously out of step here because if either of my kids ever kicked anyone in the head i'd come down on them like a ton of bricks and i'd expect the school to do the same.

my approach to violence (kicking, biting) between my kids is i don't care who started it i'm ending it. it's too easy to fall into "she did this first""she started it" and i'm not prepared to get bogged down in that kind of stuff when something potentially dangerous has happened. i drum it into them that no matter what the provocation they are responsible for their own actions and violence is _never_ an acceptable response.


----------



## DownwardDog (Oct 15, 2012)

dylans said:


> Well yeah it shocked me because it's so unlike him. I know all parents think their kid is a little angel and I don't think that but if you could see how small he is you would laugh at the idea of him beating anyone up let alone kicking someone in the head. I can't get my head around it.


 
Demetrious Johnson (UFC) is only 5'3" so size has nothing to do with it. He might just be a bad ass not a bookworm.


----------



## Thora (Oct 15, 2012)

Sometimes violence _is_ an acceptable response in defending yourself, but kicking someone in the head from behind when you aren't actually in any danger at the point isn't a proportionate response.


----------



## gabi (Oct 15, 2012)

If someone hits me or someone I love I'm gonna hit them back with extreme prejudice. The kid in the OP responded correctly imo.


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 15, 2012)

my experience comes from inter-sibling aggression. neither of them has ever raised a hand against anyone at school to my knowledge, but they frequently come to blows between themselves (kid2 has an extremely violent temper that still overtakes her entirely). in that situation how would encouraging fighting back help anything?

tbf there was one point where we took kid1 aside and said she absolutely did have the right to push her sister away, pinch her back if she was cornered, but that was when they were both a lot smaller and there was no danger of real injury occurring on either side _and_ that one or other of us would be around to see what was going on and support her defending herself. but the response was *entirely* proportionate to the original incident and at the same time we talked to kid1 about how she could avoid situations occuring/escalating in the first place (i.e. not to wind her sister up verbally because the likely response would be physical). at the same time we consistently called kid2 up on her behaviour and tried to give her other tools to deal with her overwhelming anger.

i think that's very different to giving them carte blanche to respond to violence with (escalating) violence.


----------



## gabi (Oct 15, 2012)

wayward bob said:


> my experience comes from inter-sibling aggression. neither of them has ever raised a hand against anyone at school to my knowledge, but they frequently come to blows between themselves (kid2 has an extremely violent temper that still overtakes her entirely). in that situation how would encouraging fighting back help anything?
> 
> tbf there was one point where we took kid1 aside and said she absolutely did have the right to push her sister away, pinch her back if she was cornered, but that was when they were both a lot smaller and there was no danger of real injury occurring on either side _and_ that one or other of us would be around to see what was going on and support her defending herself. but the response was *entirely* proportionate to the original incident and at the same time we talked to kid1 about how she could avoid situations occuring/escalating in the first place (i.e. not to wind her sister up verbally because the likely response would be physical). at the same time we consistently called kid2 up on her behaviour and tried to give her other tools to deal with her overwhelming anger.
> 
> i think that's very different to giving them carte blanche to respond to violence with (escalating) violence.


 
You sound like a good mum 

I'm not saying that my approach to being attacked is the right one, but it's the only one that some people understand. Particularly as a kid. Weakness, or perceived weakness is very quickly picked up on at that age. Unfortunately that sometimes involved defending yourself physically.


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 15, 2012)

gabi said:


> Weakness, or perceived weakness is very quickly picked up on at that age. Unfortunately that sometimes involved defending yourself physically.


 
being one of those kids where if you wind them up enough they lash out physically in a spectacular fashion and end up in trouble strikes me as a double edged sword tbh. giving them tools/techniques where they can hopefully learn to deal with anger/aggression without resorting to violence seems like a greater strength to me (and i agree with others that training in some form of martial art could be very useful in this respect).


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 15, 2012)

sorry havent got the time to read the whole thread at the minute, but has nayone mentioned, that if your son is small and he managed to beat up a bigger kid, i gotta feeling your son is going to get some kind of warped respect where other kids might be less inclinded to have a go at him...

its not right, but some good may come from this


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 15, 2012)

gabi said:


> If someone hits me or someone I love I'm gonna hit them back with extreme prejudice.



Call them a one legged homosexual from the social underclass in a very loud voice?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2012)

ruffneck23 said:


> sorry havent got the time to read the whole thread at the minute, but has nayone mentioned, that if your son is small and he managed to beat up a bigger kid, i gotta feeling your son is going to get some kind of warped respect where other kids might be less inclinded to have a go at him...
> 
> its not right, but some good may come from this


whereas the other kid will be known as a nark.


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 15, 2012)

Thora said:


> Sometimes violence _is_ an acceptable response in defending yourself, but kicking someone in the head from behind when you aren't actually in any danger at the point isn't a proportionate response.


         Your expecting too much of a kid if you expect them to respond to an attack in a proportional way. It takes a lot of training to get people to behave like that.


----------



## Thora (Oct 15, 2012)

dylanredefined said:


> Your expecting too much of a kid if you expect them to respond to an attack in a proportional way. It takes a lot of training to get people to behave like that.


We're not talking about a response during a fight/attack while someone is trying to defend themselves though.  The other kid sat down, the OP's child was angry, followed him and kicked him from behind.  It isn't too much to expect a child not to do that, and punishing the OP's child is making that point.

Of course, it also isn't too much to expect a child not to smack another in the face with a bag, and that boy should see some consequence too.


----------



## Pingu (Oct 15, 2012)

dylanredefined said:


> Your expecting too much of a kid if you expect them to respond to an attack in a proportional way. It takes a lot of training to get people to behave like that.


 

as demonstrated by various elements of 2 para most saturday evenings.. oh wait...


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 15, 2012)

dylanredefined said:


> Your expecting too much of a kid if you expect them to respond to an attack in a proportional way. It takes a lot of training to get people to behave like that.


 
i'd most definitely expect any child of mine not to kick another _repeatedly_ in the fucking head, no matter what the provocation


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 15, 2012)

Thora said:


> We're not talking about a response during a fight/attack while someone is trying to defend themselves though. The other kid sat down, the OP's child was angry, followed him and kicked him from behind. It isn't too much to expect a child not to do that, and punishing the OP's child is making that point.
> 
> Of course, it also isn't too much to expect a child not to smack another in the face with a bag, and that boy should see some consequence too.


 

the op says ' On thursday night on the bus on the way home my 12 year old son got into a verbal argument with another kid of the same age. The argument was over nothing, just trivial kid stuff. But the other kid got annoyed and stormed off downstairs. While he was downstairs he obviously stewed over it for 5 minutes and got himself into a rage then he came back upstairs and attacked my son. Smashed his bag into my son's face.

Now my kid is no fighter, he's very small and the other kid is bigger than him but he responded to the attack by fighting back and apparently he went too far and beat the other kid up and kicked him in the head 3 times. Now I can't defend his response. It was over the top but he was attacked and he didn't start the fight.'

youve stated that ' the OP's child was angry, followed him and kicked him from behind.'

This is not what happenend, the other kid sat down, then came back for another go...then the op's kid kicked off, as im sure most of us would have done at that age, so it isnt fair that the other kids does not appear to be punished..


----------



## mrs quoad (Oct 15, 2012)

ruffneck23 said:


> youve stated that ' the OP's child was angry, followed him and kicked him from behind.'
> 
> This is not what happenend, the other kid sat down, then came back for another go...then the op's kid kicked off, as im sure most of us would have done at that age, so it isnt fair that the other kids does not appear to be punished..


 


dylans said:


> I've grilled my son about the details of the fight. It went like this. Kid came up the stairs and smacked my son in the face with his bag and then calmly sat down. It seemed he assumed my son would just take it. My son, angry got up from his seat, walked up to him and attempted to punch him. Kid kicked out at him from the bus seat, keeping him away from hitting him with his feet. My son then stood on the chair behind and kicked him in the head 3 times. Kid blubbed. My son went back to his seat and sat down.Kid spent the rest of the bus journey blubbing, sulking in his chair. Nothing more was said. Kid's stop arrived and kid got off. The end


----------



## dylans (Oct 15, 2012)

I am not trying to justify his response. I think it was over the top and more importantly so does my son. However truth matters and it isn't fair to paint this as my son kicked him from behind or while he was passively sitting down. It was a fight. They were fighting over the top of the seats and the fight was very fast and dynamic, the other kid was twisting around and kicking out etc. As far as I can work out the kid got kicked in the cheek not the back of his head. This sounds more dramatic than it is really. Noone was injured. The other kid walked away unscathed. So, dramatic as "kick in the head" sounds, I don't think it was that dramatic. How much damage can a 12 year olds kick do? Besides. Why is a kick in the head assumed to be any worse than assault by bag full of books swung in someones face? Admittedly a kick sounds worse but is it? A bag full of books swung like a mace into a kids face is a weapon, every bit as nasty as a shoe with a foot in it.

Anyway this isn't the point because I agree that the violence meted out by my son was over the top and he is paying for it. The point is the degree to which responsibility for the aggro should fall onto the person who initiate it or whether the school should simply look at the degree of violence alone. It seems to me bizarre that the school only looks at the rather dramatic sounding violence of my son while ignoring the fact of who initiated the violence.

I am angry with my son for his behaviour. However I would be a lot more angry, furious in fact, if I ever heard that he initiated violence by launching an unprovoked premeditated assault on someone, especially with a weapon.

I have to go to the school tomorrow morning and hopefully that is the end of it. In the meantime my son has been on a strict school schedule study programme all day. I went out this morning to go shopping and left him with instructions to spend the time studying and not play games. To his credit he did, showed me pages of work. ( I checked his search history too and bless him he did as he promised, no game sites, just study searches) This is what I want to be proud of him for. Not getting into stupid fights on the bus.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 15, 2012)

It's because a 'kick in the head' is usually administered to someone on the ground, which is why people think its bad.


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 15, 2012)

it just seems to me that apportioning-blame game is a distraction from the real issue that *your* child was involved in this incident, and it sounds as though both kids were lucky to walk away uninjured. whatever the background, if this started out as a standard playground bustup there's potential for it to happen again. would he act the same if the same thing happened again? would he be as lucky that time? that's what i'd be thinking about because the only child i can help to do anything to stop that situation occurring again is *my* child, yunno?

(in your situation, or in the parents of the other kid's situation i'd do the same btw)

eta: *any* blow to the head for a teenager has the potential to cause serious injury. that's what i'd be telling both kids involved.


----------



## Ted Striker (Oct 15, 2012)

Not read the whole thread in depth, but surely the school's just taken the path of least resistance over this?

Picture the scene, parent/bill/sullen bruised kid turns up, potentially threatening all sorts...If your child has no representation (and I doubt he'll be able to defend himself against such adult pressure), then the only outcome would only ever be a heap of discipline laid on your kid.

I'd be a bit sterner at the head tbh. Do you have written statement saying "yes, we know Kid A started it, but..."

What you don't want, is your kid wholeheartedly disenfranchised with school/authority as all blame will forever be laid on him all the time.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 15, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> It's because a 'kick in the head' is usually administered to someone on the ground, which is why people think its bad.


 
oh, is it? I think it's bad because it's really fucking dangerous, actually. A kick to the head can be fatal, or cause long-term brain damage etc.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 15, 2012)

oops   @ mrs q, damn details changing and i did admit i hadnt read the whole thread, im going back tio sulk in the corner.

Im still giving the lil fella respec tho ( joke )


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 15, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> oh, is it? I think it's bad because it's really fucking dangerous, actually. A kick to the head can be fatal, or cause long-term brain damage etc.



Yes, but when someone is on the floor the head can be kicked like a football. And yes, it can be fatal.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2012)

wayward bob said:


> i'd most definitely expect any child of mine not to kick another _repeatedly_ in the fucking head, no matter what the provocation


Once you've got the fucker on the ground, make sure he stays there.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 15, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Yes, but when someone is on the floor the head can be kicked like a football. And yes, it can be fatal.


 
ok, I see what you're saying. 
It's probably inevitable that kids will get into fights, and since this is the case, they can at least be told what is dangerous to do to someone else and that even though they're small, they can still cause great harm.


----------



## Corax (Oct 15, 2012)

wayward bob said:


> i'm obviously out of step here because if either of my kids ever kicked anyone in the head i'd come down on them like a ton of bricks and i'd expect the school to do the same.
> 
> my approach to violence (kicking, biting) between my kids is i don't care who started it i'm ending it. it's too easy to fall into "she did this first""she started it" and i'm not prepared to get bogged down in that kind of stuff when something potentially dangerous has happened. i drum it into them that no matter what the provocation they are responsible for their own actions and violence is _never_ an acceptable response.


That's the approach that was instilled in me as a kid, and to be honest with you it made my life quite unpleasant.  I was relentlessly bullied in circumstances where I could have administered a single punch to the nose and lived a far happier existence.  Self-righteousness in my own moral superiority was inadequate compensation for the sustained abuse and victimisation that I endured.


----------



## dylans (Oct 15, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> ok, I see what you're saying.
> It's probably inevitable that kids will get into fights, and since this is the case, they can at least be told what is dangerous to do to someone else and that even though they're small, they can still cause great harm.


I'm not the fight referee. I prefer to teach my kid never EVER to resort to violence and START a fight. This, to me, is the golden rule, never resort to violence and there is no excuse ever for instigating violence. Responding to an act of violence started by someone else however is a different matter entirely and its just plain wrong to pretend the two are the same thing. They are not and to claim they are is to equate the violence of the bully with the violence of the bullied.


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 15, 2012)

dylans said:


> Responding to an act of violence started by someone else however is a different matter entirely and its just plain wrong to pretend the two are the same thing. They are not.


 
they both involve the exact same potential for damage and long term repercussions way beyond the scale of the original incident. no matter who started it.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 15, 2012)

wayward bob said:


> they both involve the exact same potential for damage and long term repercussions way beyond the scale of the original incident. no matter who started it.



For a teenage boy, though, backing down could easily set him up to be bullied. Dylan's kid went too far, but he was right to defend himself. The kid who attacked him then went to the cops won't seem tough to the other kids now and dylan's kid will be safer. 

It is different with boys, especially when they're not brothers.


----------



## dylans (Oct 15, 2012)

wayward bob said:


> they both involve the exact same potential for damage and long term repercussions way beyond the scale of the original incident. no matter who started it.


Of course that's true but it says nothing about responsibility and it seems to me a basic principle that the person who starts a fight and initiates violence should bear at least some responsibility for what happens next. To attack someone, and then run to your mommy and the cops because the person you attacked uses more violence than you expected is a bit rich. If you don't want to risk a kick in the head then don't attack people.


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 15, 2012)

scifisam said:


> For a teenage boy, though, backing down could easily set him up to be bullied.


 
no doubt the other kid thought the same.


----------



## dylans (Oct 15, 2012)

wayward bob said:


> no doubt the other kid thought the same.


No. The other kid saw someone smaller than him and thought he could get away with attacking him. He was wrong.


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 15, 2012)

dylans said:


> If you don't want to risk a kick in the head then don't attack people.


 
if you don't want to risk a visit from the polis don't kick people in the head. see? that's easy to do. the hard thing is to look at our own responses and take accountability for them.


----------



## Corax (Oct 15, 2012)

wayward bob said:


> no doubt the other kid thought the same.


The other kid wasn't physically attacked.


----------



## Corax (Oct 15, 2012)

wayward bob said:


> if you don't want to risk a visit from the polis don't kick people in the head. see? that's easy to do. the hard thing is to look at our own responses and take accountability for them.


Which Dylans and his son has done.  Right from the start he's made clear that he thinks his son's reaction was unacceptable, and that his son accepts and agrees with that.


----------



## Thora (Oct 15, 2012)

What your kid did was understandable, and hopefully the other kid has learned a lesson about picking on people.

I don't believe that you must _never_ resort to violence, and I will teach my children that if someone attacks you, you can do whatever you have to to stop/fend off the attack.  I think it is fine to say to children, even little children, that if someone is hurting you and won't stop then you can push them as hard as you can in the chest with both hands and then call for help/run and tell the teacher.  If someone hits you you don't have to just take it, but that's not to say you should go after them and wallop them back either.

But, your son wasn't defending himself in the midst of an attack.  If the other kid had smacked him with the bag and yours had immediately hit/pushed him then he could argue self-defense and I think the school would be handling things differently.  The other kid started the fight but your kid pursued it.

That said, there should definitely be some consequences for the other boy too.


----------



## dylans (Oct 15, 2012)

Thora said:


> What your kid did was understandable, and hopefully the other kid has learned a lesson about picking on people.
> 
> I don't believe that you must _never_ resort to violence, and I will teach my children that if someone attacks you, you can do whatever you have to to stop/fend off the attack. I think it is fine to say to children, even little children, that if someone is hurting you and won't stop then you can push them as hard as you can in the chest with both hands and then call for help/run and tell the teacher. If someone hits you you don't have to just take it, but that's not to say you should go after them and wallop them back either.
> 
> ...


This is pretty much my view too


----------



## Corax (Oct 15, 2012)

Thora said:


> But, your son wasn't defending himself in the midst of an attack. If the other kid had smacked him with the bag and yours had immediately hit/pushed him then he could argue self-defense and I think the school would be handling things differently. The other kid started the fight but your kid pursued it.


Very easy for adults to mentally break something down into discrete sections like that. Less easy for a kid in the grip of fear, anger, and adrenaline.


----------



## Thora (Oct 15, 2012)

Corax said:


> Very easy for adults to mentally break something down into discrete sections like that. Less easy for a kid in the grip of fear and adrenaline.


Yes, and it's ridiculous for the police to be involved with 12 year olds fighting for exactly that reason.  But it's also fine for parents/school to send the message that the reaction was too much.  Similarly I expect my 2 year old to lose it sometimes and bite another child because they took his toy, but I still give him a time out because it isn't acceptable.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 15, 2012)

Thora said:


> Yes, and it's ridiculous for the police to be involved with 12 year olds fighting for exactly that reason. But it's also fine for parents/school to send the message that the reaction was too much. Similarly I expect my 2 year old to lose it sometimes and bite another child because they took his toy, but I still give him a time out because it isn't acceptable.


 
Yep, my middle one was getting bullied by a few of the boys in his class in the first year of primary school for a while, they would always play a 'game' after school where they wound him up so he'd chase them but it was nasty iyswim, this went on for a few weeks with him getting increasingly unhappy about being painted into a corner where he was always the baddie. Then one day I saw the ringleader shoving and pushing him almost off his feet to try and get him to react and he had clearly had enough so he thumped him full in the face. Ringleader burst into tears and ran off to his mum, I felt secretly proud of my son but still marched him up to apologise. After that they stopped that particular bit of winding-up behaviour because they'd learnt that you can push someone too far and they may react in an undesirable way. They all get on quite well now.


----------



## gabi (Oct 15, 2012)

Corax said:


> Which Dylans and his son has done. Right from the start he's made clear that he thinks his son's reaction was unacceptable, and that his son accepts and agrees with that.


 
His response was not unacceptable. No kid will fuck with this little dude again after seeing that he can stand up for himself.


----------



## geminisnake (Oct 15, 2012)

Liking the outcome weeps, not that P was pushed too far.


----------



## dylans (Oct 15, 2012)

gabi said:


> His response was not unacceptable. No kid will fuck with this little dude again after seeing that he can stand up for himself.


He shouldn't have kicked the kid in the head though. I can't go into school tomorrow and defend that. I can however emphasise the point that he was attacked. My son put it perfectly today when he said

"I think there is a clear line between being involved in a fight and starting a fight and I have never started a fight in my life".


----------



## gabi (Oct 15, 2012)

Aye. My old man didn't know much but his words have stayed with me down the years... 'dont start a fight son. finish it'.

It's a sad fact of life that sometimes this is necessary.


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 15, 2012)

dylans said:


> He shouldn't have kicked the kid in the head though. I can't go into school tomorrow and defend that. I can however emphasise the point that he was attacked. My son put it perfectly today when he said
> 
> "I think there is a clear line between being involved in a fight and starting a fight and I have never started a fight in my life".


 
fair do's to you dylans, it sounds like you both have your heads screwed on. good luck.


----------



## friedaweed (Oct 15, 2012)

Clearly the moral of the story here is fight with your hands not your feet or your bag. I would have excluded them both for fighting like girls



*Legs it


----------



## Corax (Oct 15, 2012)

Thora said:


> Yes, and it's ridiculous for the police to be involved with 12 year olds fighting for exactly that reason. But it's also fine for parents/school to send the message that the reaction was too much. Similarly I expect my 2 year old to lose it sometimes and bite another child because they took his toy, but I still give him a time out because it isn't acceptable.


Ah, I think I see what you meant a little better now, and agree.


----------



## Corax (Oct 15, 2012)

gabi said:


> His response was not unacceptable. No kid will fuck with this little dude again after seeing that he can stand up for himself.


Standing up for himself was the right thing to do - but he went too far.


dylans said:


> He shouldn't have kicked the kid in the head though. I can't go into school tomorrow and defend that.


Absolutely.

dylans himself has said that his son's response was unacceptable (maybe not in those words) - and it wasn't.  Kicking someone in the head is never acceptable, unless perhaps you're in fear of your life or something.  It's as important for him to learn that as it is to learn to stick up for himself.

It wasn't acceptable, but it is _understandable.  _See my earlier posts - I'm not condemning the lad for a second.

I'd also echo what others have said - plenty of credit to dylans and his boy in both their reactions to this.  Five star parenting and a son to match.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 15, 2012)

Sounds like you're handling it really well, dylans


----------



## dylans (Oct 15, 2012)

temper_tantrum said:


> Sounds like you're handling it really well, dylans


Not really. To be honest, it's really upset me the past few days. I have thought of little else and I have hardly slept for worrying about it.  Glad I posted this however, and a big thanks for the advice and thoughts from everyone and just for allowing me to vent. Urban at its best


----------



## Corax (Oct 15, 2012)

dylans said:


> To be honest, it's really upset me the past few days. I have thought of little else


And that's why you're a good dad and (as tt said) handling it really well.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 15, 2012)

dylans said:


> Not really. To be honest, it's really upset me the past few days. I have thought of little else and I have hardly slept for worrying about it.  Glad I posted this however, and a big thanks for the advice and thoughts from everyone and just for allowing me to vent. Urban at its best



Of course it has upset you - that is part of why you are handling it so well  It is a real dilemma but I think your instincts are good and you're doing exactly the right thing.
Your son is lucky to have you


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2012)

wayward bob said:


> if you don't want to risk a visit from the polis don't kick people in the head. see?


yes. this worked well for mark braithwaite and engin raghip, among others


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 15, 2012)

Thora said:


> What your kid did was understandable, and hopefully the other kid has learned a lesson about picking on people.
> 
> I don't believe that you must _never_ resort to violence, and I will teach my children that if someone attacks you, you can do whatever you have to to stop/fend off the attack. I think it is fine to say to children, even little children, that if someone is hurting you and won't stop then you can push them as hard as you can in the chest with both hands and then call for help/run and tell the teacher. If someone hits you you don't have to just take it, but that's not to say you should go after them and wallop them back either.
> 
> ...


 
while I agree in theory that it's ok to tell kids to fight back, I've seen this many times be completely misunderstood by kids. One much bigger boy was hitting and pushing his sister while I was taking care of them and he insisted that he was doing nothing wrong because his dad had told him it was okay to fight back when someone's bullying you. 

I'd say it's probably better to teach them how to scream as loud as they can and/or get away. They're not old enough to understand the complexities of what constitutes self-defense in most cases.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Oct 15, 2012)

dylans said:


> Not really. To be honest, it's really upset me the past few days. I have thought of little else and I have hardly slept for worrying about it.  Glad I posted this however, and a big thanks for the advice and thoughts from everyone and just for allowing me to vent. Urban at its best


I'm not surprised it has gotten to you dylans, not only is he in the shit at school but you've got to get over the thought of your child kicking another child in the head; nobody wants to think of their child doing that. And yet, the fact that he was picked on is also worrying and unfair. That's a horrible mass of conflicting things to mull over.
I think you have done all that you can do though by discussing it with him, by discussing it with other people and by staying calm. I am sure your boy will appreciate that you have considered his position in what must have been a stressful time for him as well as you.


----------



## Corax (Oct 15, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> I'd say it's probably better to teach them how to scream as loud as they can and/or get away.


The realities of childhood mean that if a kid's being bullied, then at some point that stance will result in nothing more than being viciously assaulted whilst screaming loudly and struggling. School life and other aspects of childhood gives bullies a lot of opportunities to corner those that they perceive as weak, way out of reach of adult protection. The fact that the other guy gets detention is scant consolation for the scars that kind of thing can leave on a kid's psyche.



Miss Caphat said:


> They're not old enough to understand the complexities of what constitutes self-defense in most cases.


It's a difficult one. But as I and others have suggested before, some martial training can help overcome that.

Kids are no more less intelligent than adults, but they are often less in control of their emotional responses.

They _*are*_ able to understand what constitutes self-defence, but they may not necessarily be able to practically _*apply*_ the distinction when the fight or flight response kicks in.

By getting them comfortable in a combat situation through sports, then you don't only increase their ability to protect themselves, you also make the real thing less terrifying - and therefore less likely to provoke the panic that results in 'red mist' extreme violence.

In addition, a decent martial trainer will also make sure that the kids understand just how bad the consequences of their actions could be, and that they could unintentionally maim someone if they don't apply a bit of self-control - counteracting what they see in films and wrestling.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 15, 2012)

Corax said:


> The realities of childhood mean that if a kid's being bullied, then at some point that stance will result in nothing more than being viciously assaulted whilst screaming loudly and struggling. School life and other aspects of childhood gives bullies a lot of opportunities to corner those that they perceive as weak, way out of reach of adult protection. The fact that the other guy gets detention is scant consolation for the scars that kind of thing can leave on a kid's psyche.
> 
> 
> It's a difficult one. But as I and others have suggested before, some martial training can help overcome that.
> ...


 
otoh, that never happened to me. I got punched in the head once, by a tough girl. She walked up behind me and punched me and I just stood there, stunned, and kind of laughed, and walked away. It didn't result in constant beatings after that point, actually nothing really happened at all.  

also, the anti-bullying programs in schools that the kids participate in have been really effective at curtailing violence and, obviously, bullying. 
I'm not saying this way is always successful in every case, just that I think there's some degree of perpetuating the cycle of violence inherent in telling your kids to fight back. 
I know a lot of parents do this, and I'd never tell them that this is wrong, but I personally wouldn't. 

the screaming thing is more for young kids, or if they're being actually attacked or touched by someone older/bigger.


----------



## Corax (Oct 15, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> otoh, that never happened to me. I got punched in the head once, by a tough girl. She walked up behind me and punched me and I just stood there, stunned, and kind of laughed, and walked away.


That's similar to the way I'd react as a kid, as it seemed so out of context (from my perception of the world) and I basically didn't know what else to do. Unlike you though, it didn't end there. If I'd given them a single solid jab to the nose, it probably would have.

I've already started teaching my lad to defend himself (not in that context - as play), but I'm also combining it with the message that resorting to violence is never a good thing. As he gets older, I'll be instilling something on the lines of the queensbury rules in him - things like not kicking someone when they're down.

It's a delicate balance, no doubt about it. But I want him to have the option, and to be able to make his choices. Hopefully, I'll be able to instil enough of the right values in him that his choices will be good ones.

And hopefully I'll be able to provide him with enough physical confidence to be _*able*_ to make choices - rather than just reacting on instinct.


----------



## dylans (Oct 16, 2012)

Ok just got back from the school and I must say they were disarmingly good. 

The year head preceded my request for a one on one meeting by suggesting it herself and we had a chat. She levelled with me and told me what I suspected, that it was the other kid's parents calling the police that led to my son's exclusion. In a nutshell, this was the compromise the school offered to get the cops to back off by telling them they would deal with it in school. She told me straight it wasn't fair but that was the price the school felt necessary to protect my son from the police. 

I can't argue with that. I would much rather my kid lost two days school than have to deal with cops. She also said that the just thing would have been to exclude both kids and asked me if I wanted to pursue a complaint against their kid. I declined. I think she was very straight with me and I just want to draw a line on this. Its over now. My son is back in school and its finished. 

My son is very highly regarded in school and that played a part in the school pushing the parents so hard to not pursue charges. They stuck up for him basically and got the best deal they could for him. I think that's fair enough. Both kids have paid a price. Their kid got a kick in the head and my kid got a two day exclusion. That evens things out in my book


----------



## weepiper (Oct 16, 2012)

That actually seems like a pretty good result dylans


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 16, 2012)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Badgers has obviously never been bashed in the head by a laptop carrier twat while sitting on the bus


I lost a tooth being hit square in the mouth with a laptop bag being swung over the shoulder of someone in front of me on the up escalator at Victoria. OK, it wasn't exactly well embedded in the jaw because of being hit in the face a few years before, but that's not really the point.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 16, 2012)

Really glad there was an acceptable outcome. Fair play to the HOY for levelling with you, dylans.


----------



## dylans (Oct 16, 2012)

Oh the two kids have to meet and shake hands later today so alls well that ends well etc.

She finished the conversation by telling me that despite this incident "I have an amazing kid"

But I knew that anyway


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Oct 16, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I lost a tooth being hit square in the mouth with a laptop bag being swung over the shoulder of someone in front of me on the up escalator at Victoria. OK, it wasn't exactly well embedded in the jaw because of being hit in the face a few years before, but that's not really the point.


 
Did the person responsible apologise?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 16, 2012)

I still think it sends the wrong message that the other lad can start on people and then use the police as back up if he doesn't like the reaction he gets. He should have at least had a talking to over it.


----------



## dylans (Oct 16, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> I still think it sends the wrong message that the other lad can start on people and then use the police as back up if he doesn't like the reaction he gets. He should have at least had a talking to over it.


Calling the cops was a shitty thing to do to a 12 year old kid after it was their kid who started the fight but I am confident that the school acted to protect my son and for that I can only be grateful.

Out of curiosity, I am wondering what would have happened if they had pressed charges. The fact that their kid started the fight would have quickly come out but my son's overreaction may not have been excusable as self defence (because it wasn't- not really. It was a response to an attack but hardly self defence to kick the kid in the head). I guess I would have been forced to press charges against their kid and the whole thing would have got very messy. Not something that would have benefited either kid. I doubt if the cops would be too happy to be dragged into something that is relatively trivial either. A fight between two 12 year olds in which no one was really hurt ffs. But I can't help wondering what would have happened. Would my son have been arrested? Put in a cell? Had to go to court? Fined? Would I have ended up with social workers crawling all over our lives? That would have been horrific.


----------



## Corax (Oct 16, 2012)

Corax said:


> Depends what the head teacher is like. If it was me, I know I could go in and have a chat with him, be honest about my feelings about the situation, and know that the head would be honest and reasonable in response. I did just that when the boy I've mentioned strangled him, and he explained about the other kid's background (which he told me he shouldn't have, technically), but promised to ask all the staff to keep a close eye on my boy to ensure it didn't happen again. But that's cause he's a decent bloke, and treats parents with respect. There are some teachers out there who do nothing but talk down to parents as though they're also children, and having a conversation with one of those may do nothing but leave you feeling more angry and wanting to kick them in the head as well.


 


dylans said:


> Ok just got back from the school and I must say they were disarmingly good.
> 
> The year head preceded my request for a one on one meeting by suggesting it herself and we had a chat. She levelled with me and told me what I suspected, that it was the other kid's parents calling the police that led to my son's exclusion. In a nutshell, this was the compromise the school offered to get the cops to back off by telling them they would deal with it in school. She told me straight it wasn't fair but that was the price the school felt necessary to protect my son from the police.
> 
> ...


 
Sounds like you have a decent head there, who treats parents with adequate respect.  It's not as common as you might expect, so it's definitely something to be thankful for.

Glad it went well dylans.  You've handled this impeccably IMO.


----------



## stuff_it (Oct 16, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I lost a tooth being hit square in the mouth with a laptop bag being swung over the shoulder of someone in front of me on the up escalator at Victoria. OK, it wasn't exactly well embedded in the jaw because of being hit in the face a few years before, but that's not really the point.


Were you standing on the left!?


----------



## Corax (Oct 16, 2012)

dylans said:


> Oh the two kids have to meet and shake hands later today so alls well that ends well etc.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Oct 17, 2012)

You have handled this so well dylans


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 17, 2012)

dylans said:


> I think the fact that the other kid started the fight should be taken into account and at the least both kids should be excluded. As it is it seems to me that starting a fight and launching a premeditated assault is treated less severely than winning one..


 
Who cares about the other kid? You have a twelve year old son who seemed to think it was ok to finish off a fight by kicking another kid in the head three times.

You should be thankful that the police came and warned him, and that he got suspended. Maybe he will learn from this, and won't repeat it when he's older, and liable for a stretch at Her Majesty's Pleasure.


----------



## dylans (Oct 17, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Who cares about the other kid? You have a twelve year old son who seemed to think it was ok to finish off a fight by kicking another kid in the head three times.
> 
> You should be thankful that the police came and warned him, and that he got suspended. Maybe he will learn from this, and won't repeat it when he's older, and liable for a stretch at Her Majesty's Pleasure.


fuck off


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 17, 2012)

dylans said:


> fuck off


 
I find it more than a little surprising that you'd post up a story like this about your child, on an internet bb.


----------



## dylans (Oct 17, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I find it more than a little surprising that you'd post up a story like this about your child, on an internet bb.


go fuck yourself you obnoxious cunt.


----------



## Ted Striker (Oct 17, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Who cares about the other kid? You have a twelve year old son who seemed to think it was ok to finish off a fight by kicking another kid in the head three times.
> 
> You should be thankful that the police came and warned him, and that he got suspended. Maybe he will learn from this, and won't repeat it when he's older, and liable for a stretch at Her Majesty's Pleasure.


 
A child needs to see 'justice' and fairness from authority. He is not seeking to be absolved of his own blame, but at the same time expects other people to be treated on the same basis. You're really haven't read this at all, have you?

Kids don't see prison, nor do they rarely see hospital. I know the hyperbole sounds right on here, but much worse altercations than the ones mentioned here happen up and down the country every week, and the number of incidents that end in the those outcomes are relatively infinitessably small.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 17, 2012)

dylans said:


> go fuck yourself you obnoxious cunt.


 
What have you achieved here?  You've made a 'talking point' out of your child.

Nothing that gets said on this thread will have any consequence to your kid's situation at the school. A thousand people can say 'yes it's unfair'. That might help bolster your belief that your son has been done wrong by. You can tell him, and he can feel even further wronged.

I stand by my original comment that the most important thing that can happen, is that your son might learn that multiple kicks to the head of a fellow classmate won't help anything; and that the optics of the situation will be so bad, that it will rise to the fore and take precedence over the fact that the other student instigated the fight.

The other student instigated a fight, but your son did a nasty, excessive thing that would present as a warning signal to police and the people at school who watch for these things.

Given how you've responded, I'm assuming that you can't see this. For the sake of your son in future, let's hope that he gets the message.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 17, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> much worse altercations than the ones mentioned here happen up and down the country every week, and the number of incidents that end in the those outcomes are relatively infinitessably small.


 
What's your message: that that's a good thing?

That the kid can go forward, and if he assaults someone in future, the chances of punishment are low?


If you want to see a reduction of 'much worse altercations happening up and down the country every week', you have to  begin by teaching young people that excessive acts of violence will have consequence.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2012)

I have to agree with jc that a few kicks to the head is excessive, when one should have done the trick. Have you thought of enrolling your son on boxing or martial arts classes, dylans? Boy done well tho.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What's your message: that that's a good thing?
> 
> That the kid can go forward, and if he assaults someone in future, the chances of punishment are low?
> 
> ...


Do you believe the incidence of violence in british schools is increasing?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 17, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Do you believe the incidence of violence in british schools is increasing?


 
I have no clue. But the poster talked about 'much more serious altercations every week up and down the country'.

The way out of that has to begin with education of young people.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 17, 2012)

This thread was considerably more thoughtful and nuanced than you're making out, JC. Or at least it was until your intervention. Have you actually read it all?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I have no clue. But the poster talked about 'much more serious altercations every week up and down the country'.
> 
> The way out of that has to begin with education of young people.


Yeh. You don't have a clew: and that ought to stop you pontificating on matters you admit you are ignorant of. Now fuck off.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 17, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. You don't have a clew: and that ought to stop you pontificating on matters you admit you are ignorant of. Now fuck off.


 
I've raised kids, including sons. I've dealt with school authorities about fights etc.

Have you? Thought not. So why not fuck off and stop pontificating about something you have zero experience with?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I've raised kids, including sons. I've dealt with school authorities about fights etc.
> 
> Have you? Thought not. So why not fuck off and stop pontificating about something you have zero experience with?


I thought you were a lawyer. But you're not so up with the forensick questioning, as you show here by trying so ineptly to shift the fucking parameters of our discussion.


----------



## dylans (Oct 17, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I've raised kids, including sons. I've dealt with school authorities about fights etc.
> 
> Have you? Thought not. So why not fuck off and stop pontificating about something you have zero experience with?


I think the general consensus is that you are behaving like an obnoxious prick who brings nothing to a thread that, until you showed up with your self righteous finger wagging, has been very constructive in helping me deal with a difficult and stressful situation.

So you will understand if I treat you with the contempt you and your posts deserve and and just ignore you.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 17, 2012)

Anyway dylans, glad that the situation is resolved alright  Do you know whether the head informed these other parents that their kid started it? From the fact that they called the cops, it sounds very much as though their kid only gave them the edited highlights ...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 17, 2012)

dylans said:


> I think the general consensus is that you are behaving like an obnoxious prick who brings nothing to a thread that, until you showed up with your self righteous finger wagging, has been very constructive in helping me deal with a difficult and stressful situation.
> 
> So you will understand if I treat you with the contempt you and your posts deserve and and just ignore you.


 
As a parent, I'd find news that my kid had kicked another repeatedly in the head when the other was down, to be quite disturbing. It seems like a warning light, that the child has a lot of rage, or frustration, or aggression, that is showing itself. It seems like a sign that something more than just avoiding the police, might be needed.

If you want to treat this as an exercise in internet one upmanship, go ahead. You can call me names or tell me to fuck off. But as one parent to another, I sincerely hope that when the computer is turned off, you'll give this some thought. Your kid's well being would seem to be the most important consideration here.


----------



## dylans (Oct 17, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> As a parent, I'd find news that my kid had kicked another repeatedly in the head when the other was down, to be quite disturbing. It seems like a warning light, that the child has a lot of rage, or frustration, or aggression, that is showing itself. It seems like a sign that something more than just avoiding the police, might be needed.
> 
> If you want to treat this as an exercise in internet one upmanship, go ahead. You can call me names or tell me to fuck off. But as one parent to another, I sincerely hope that when the computer is turned off, you'll give this some thought. Your kid's well being would seem to be the most important consideration here.


Gee thanks for that advice. Its just what I needed. You know my son so well and until you mentioned it his behaviour didn't bother me at all. In fact I thought it was great and I was going to throw him a celebration party but after your post I will cancel it. I will definately sit down and give consideration to your erudite and incisive advice. I would never have considered that without your comments. Thanks


Fucking prick


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2012)

dylans said:


> Gee thanks for that advice. Its just what I needed. You know my son so well and until you mentioned it his behaviour didn't bother me at all. In fact I thought it was great and I was going to throw him a celebration party but after your post I will cancel it. I will definately sit down and give consideration to your erudite and incisive advice. I would never have considered that without your comments. Thanks
> 
> 
> Fucking prick


shurely 'condescending patronising fucking prick' tho even that's a bit restrained


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 17, 2012)

dylans said:


> Gee thanks for that advice. Its just what I needed. You know my son so well and until you mentioned it his behaviour didn't bother me at all. In fact I thought it was great and I was going to throw him a celebration party but after your post I will cancel it. I will definately sit down and give consideration to your erudite and incisive advice. I would never have considered that without your comments. Thanks
> 
> 
> Fucking prick


 
No one, or at least almost no one who's posted on this thread I assume, knows your son.

You put up a thread: that invites comment. I'm sorry that mine are upsetting to you.


----------



## dylans (Oct 17, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> No one, or at least almost no one who's posted on this thread I assume, knows your son.
> 
> You put up a thread: that invites comment. I'm sorry that mine are upsetting to you.


give it a rest ffs


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 17, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> No one, or at least almost no one who's posted on this thread I assume, knows your son.
> 
> You put up a thread: that invites comment. I'm sorry that mine are upsetting to you.


 
Fuck off.  Dylans dealt with the situation perfectly.  You are adding nothing to this discussion.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 17, 2012)

Johnny do you ever actually read threads properly, because it appears you increasingly just skim them and take whatever posts leap out at you out of context.


----------



## Thora (Oct 17, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> As a parent, I'd find news that my kid had kicked another repeatedly in the head when the other was down, to be quite disturbing. It seems like a warning light, that the child has a lot of rage, or frustration, or aggression, that is showing itself. It seems like a sign that something more than just avoiding the police, might be needed.
> 
> If you want to treat this as an exercise in internet one upmanship, go ahead. You can call me names or tell me to fuck off. But as one parent to another, I sincerely hope that when the computer is turned off, you'll give this some thought. Your kid's well being would seem to be the most important consideration here.


He wasn't "down"


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2012)

Thora said:


> He wasn't "down"


 but he should have been


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 17, 2012)

So, the answer to my question was, 'hadn't read the thread'. Glad we established that.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 18, 2012)

tbh, though, the kicking in the head thing_ is_ really alarming.

I've restrained myself, but tbf I think there has been something odd about this thread. I don't know dylans, but if it were my kid, my thread would have been about how to approach my son to talk about violence/fighting, or something about how upset what he did that had made me/him, and should we seek counseling?, etc...not fixated on how to get the other kid punished.  I have never been there, but I really don't think _the unfairness of it all_ would be the first thing on my mind. just saying.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 18, 2012)

In for a penny; in for a pound.


----------



## dylans (Oct 18, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> tbh, though, the kicking in the head thing_ is_ really alarming.
> 
> I've restrained myself, but tbf I think there has been something odd about this thread. I don't know dylans, but if it were my kid, my thread would have been about how to approach my son to talk about violence/fighting, or something about how upset what he did that had made me/him, and should we seek counseling?, etc...not fixated on how to get the other kid punished.  I have never been there, but I really don't think _the unfairness of it all_ would be the first thing on my mind.


 
I don't know if you have kids or not but you are saying here that if you had a kid and  your kid is bullied and attacked by a kid bigger than him and your kid fights back and in doing so goes too far, and for doing so, for fighting back against a bully, your kid is punished and the bully is let off scott free, that wouldn't bother you? You would only be concerned about the fact that the poor bully got more than he expected?  

This is what you are telling me? That I should only be concerned about the level of violence a bullied kid used against a kid who attacked him and I should not be concerned about the justice of a bully walking away with a slap on the wrist?  I should totally ignore the injustice of that situation and only worry about the fact the violence my kid used in response to being attacked?


----------



## dylans (Oct 18, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> In for a penny; in for a pound.


You really are a wanker, you know that.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 18, 2012)

dylans said:


> You really are a wanker, you know that.


 

Given the kicking I just received on this thread: you expected me to just lie there and take it?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 18, 2012)

dylans said:


> I don't know if you have kids or not but you are saying here that if you had a kid and your kid is bullied and attacked by a kid bigger than him and your kid fights back and in doing so goes too far, and for doing so, for fighting back against a bully, your kid is punished and the bully is let off scott free, that wouldn't bother you? You would only be concerned about the fact that the poor bully got more than he expected?
> 
> This is what you are telling me? That I should only be concerned about the level of violence a bullied kid used against a kid who attacked him and I should not be concerned about the justice of a bully walking away with a slap on the wrist? I should totally ignore the injustice of that situation and only worry about the fact the violence my kid used in response to being attacked?


 
What she's trying to tell you, and what you aren't hearing, is that your primary concern should  be your son's welfare and well being. He's given you a warning signal. You can choose to ignore it or not. There's nothing more to be said.


----------



## dylans (Oct 18, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Given the kicking I just received on this thread: you expected me to just lie there and take it?


just fuck off johnny. Really, just fuck off.


----------



## dylans (Oct 18, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> There's nothing more to be said.


 
That's good. Bye then


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 18, 2012)

dylans said:


> I don't know if you have kids or not but you are saying here that if you had a kid and your kid is bullied and attacked by a kid bigger than him and your kid fights back and in doing so goes too far, and for doing so, for fighting back against a bully, your kid is punished and the bully is let off scott free, that wouldn't bother you? You would only be concerned about the fact that the poor bully got more than he expected?
> 
> This is what you are telling me? That I should only be concerned about the level of violence a bullied kid used against a kid who attacked him and I should not be concerned about the justice of a bully walking away with a slap on the wrist? I should totally ignore the injustice of that situation and only worry about the fact the violence my kid used in response to being attacked?


 
 I just don't think this is what I'd be concerned about as a parent. I'm sorry, I'm just being honest. 
Not that your kid is "bad" or that I'd think my kid was "bad" but I'd want to get him help, first and foremost, for the extreme lashing out, and get to the root of it before it becomes a bigger problem.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 18, 2012)

ok, I see now. you feel that your son was driven to this extreme behavior because he was being bullied, for possibly a long time before this, and it got built up so much that he just "snapped?"

this makes more sense to me, why you'd pursue justice. but still, I think that it might be more helpful to advocate for an anti-bullying campaign at the school in this case than to be fixated on 'justice' and also to work this issue out w/your son first and foremost. Not just by some token self-defense or martial arts training, but by helping him work through his feelings about being bullied or whatever else is causing him to lose control like that.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Oct 18, 2012)

I read the situation as 
Dylans is concerned to support his son in seeing that punishment was proportionate to the behaviour
that the story of the whole situation is explored and articulated not just dylan jnrs part
dylans is concerned that his son addresses the forceful physical response ie kicking the boys head
dylans is concerned that the school knew the bigger picture so than jnr isnt labelled wrongly going forward

dylans is happy with the way the school delt with it as they and he are in agreement with the above

where are some posters reading that dylans only wants to punish the other child? or missing the fact that dylans was disturbed by the force of jnrs response?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 18, 2012)

Miss-Shelf said:


> where are some posters reading that dylans only wants to punish the other child?


 
Maybe the thread title is misleading.


----------



## dylans (Oct 18, 2012)

Miss Caphat said:


> ok, I see now. you feel that your son was driven to this extreme behavior because he was being bullied, for possibly a long time before this, and it got built up so much that he just "snapped?"
> 
> this makes more sense to me, why you'd pursue justice. but still, I think that it might be more helpful to advocate for an anti-bullying campaign at the school in this case than to be fixated on 'justice' and also to work this issue out w/your son first and foremost. Not just by some token self-defense or martial arts training, but by helping him work through his feelings about being bullied or whatever else is causing him to lose control like that.


 
You have to understand something. He's little. I mean really little. He's the smallest kid in his year. My theory about the level of violence he used is that he went a bit bonkers because the other kid is bigger and because he's small and because he was attacked because he is small and an easy target and because, in the heat of the moment when adrenaline and fear and anger etc was high, he somehow rationalised that if he had to fight he had to go nuts or he would lose. That doesn't excuse the amount of violence he used, I think it helps explain it. It seems to me very important in understanding what happened to understand the whole context and in that context, the fact that he never started the violence but responded to it is very important and I think that should have been reflected in the initial punishment and my son shouldn't have been made solely responsible for violence that he didn't initiate. To do that is to put the blame on the bullied and not on the bully.

As I posted earlier, After meeting with the school,I am satisfied with the schools response and understand their rationale. I'm not seeking the other kids punishment. I was offered that opportunity and turned it down when I met the school on tuesday. I am just concerned that by focusing only the level of violence in my son's response and ignoring the mitigating factor that he was attacked, he is in danger of being labelled some kind of violent thug when that isn't the case. If my son was going around initiating violence I would be much more concerned but that's not what happened.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 18, 2012)

This thread has gone utterly bizarre now.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Oct 18, 2012)

Some people just aren't reading dylans' thoughtful, nuanced posts in their entirety.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 18, 2012)

Whoever said I responded to this thread without reading it in its entirety was correct.  I read the op plus a few more.

Busy these days, etc; not a real excuse.

I've taken the time to read a bit more. Not all - it seems to veer off a bit in the middle.

It becomes apparent that you have given a lot of thought to all aspects of the situation. It's readily apparent to me now that my posts were excessively hamfisted. Apologies for that.

For what it's worth, I responded to that first post as a parent to a parent. I think the parent in me wanted to do two things: give an opinion [which was sincere, even if based on limited info]; and maybe address some of my own perceived missteps vis a vis my own kids. So: fail on two counts - unnecessary advice to you; and an inability to change the past, for me.

I hope everything works out. I don't think there's much that's worse for a parent than watching their child go through difficult times.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 18, 2012)

weepiper said:
			
		

> Johnny do you ever actually read threads properly, because it appears you increasingly just skim them and take whatever posts leap out at you out of context.



Of course he hasn't read the thread. You don't rack up over 100,000 posts by wasting time pondering what others are saying.


----------



## dylans (Oct 18, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Whoever said I responded to this thread without reading it in its entirety was correct. I read the op plus a few more.
> 
> Busy these days, etc; not a real excuse.
> 
> ...


Apology accepted


----------

