Driver says he did all he could during Florida school bus beating

Yea he snitched, but take him 1 on 1. No need to be a bunch if pussies about it. Got no respect or time for people jumping people like that. Short of beating up a rapist/paedophile there is no excuse to do it. If those 3 kids couldnt hide their operations well enough and offered drugs to a fucking 13 year old then who's fault is that? The

Stupid dealers got locked up, that's natural selection in the drug world.
 
I don't know how this thread went from teen violence to snitching. I mean, it's 3 boys beating the shit out of a boy on a goddamn school bus! The bus driver did everything to follow procedures, I mean, he's 60 something years old. He's got a family to worry about and certainly doesn't want to take one 3 teen boys pumped up on adrenaline. A good Samaritan is just that, a good Samaritan. Could he have done more? Of course but should we hold that against him? Hell no. He's an employee and employees are always told to NOT put themselves in harms way. Like if you work at a store and if someone robs it--you're told to give up the money freely and NOT put yourself at risk.
 
I think that more students should have jumped in to protect the kid. I was taught to protect the weak, and if you don't stand up you are just as wrong. This litigation nation thoroughly muddles those ideals.

There is clearly a victim here...drug dealing is a victimless crime.
 
Of course I present a so called 'argument' for both sides - illustrating how silly it is to selectively impose a standard of behavior on other people via 'degree of moral violation' and using an individual's emotional offense to a given deed as a universal standard. You say I simply rambled meaninglessly. If you can't see that I purposely posted that in that fashion SPECIFICALLY to induce your reaction of confusion and claims that there is no consistent logic, well then, I overestimated the effectiveness of the approach. So to state concisely: There is no possible way to demonstrate an unbiased standard of degree that can be applied - in a moral/social/emotional context - to a given action.

So you get the kind of rabid and hyper and inaccurate reaction that you folks just demonstrated to my example, which results in an immediate discarding of anyone endorsing such a fallacious position.

Easier to comprehend now? And for the record, my personal position (which I impose only on myself of course) is that one man does not have the right to instruct another on how to live via the implementation of legislated morality. I handle situations like the above on my own, face to face with whomever I want to work out differences, in a sincere effort to find peace. Finally, I absolutely abhor a tattle-on-your-neighbor mentality. To answer how this is applicable with such a strong position against something like rape: The person with the right to report the rape is the victim, no one else. The only other who has a right to chronicle the event is the accused. Legislation and policy focused strictly on the issue of immediate and violent force and physical harm as a universal standard is the obvious solution. Didn't mean to offend anyone simply for theatrical purpose. My apologies.
 
Last edited:
Manboychef -

From an emotional standpoint I applaud your sentiments, but if you were granted your wish to see a society based strictly on people retaliating to people on the behalf of other people, you would quickly understand the need for a legislative entity. For example, did you not deduce from my post that my son - indeed my whole family - are trained fighters? And how is that relevant? Well, what if my son were on that bus and retaliated from a strictly emotional, 'teach them a lesson' position. He'd hurt them all very very badly, no question. Would that be right? I mean, what is the standard governing 'appropriate violence for vengeance purposes?" Or worse yet, what if he decided to impose his every whim on anybody he chose via the threat of immediate physical injury? How would a person lacking in fighting skills address this in your proposed context?

It is my belief (again, just an opinion here) that the only truly appropriate motivation for retaliatory action is to PROMOTE AND ESTABLISH PEACE, not promote and establish who's the baddest or the rightest or the most victimized or what have you.
 
Last edited:
synchrojet said:
You say I simply rambled meaninglessly.
Click to expand...

Those are your words, not mine.

I don't think anyone in this thread (or on Fox News) is considering the possibility that none of the kids on the bus liked the guy that was getting beat. Chances are that everyone had heard that he had turned snitch, and that's one sure way in a school to get everyone to hate you. The problem is, when the school teaches someone to snitch, they never tell him what will happen to him because he snitched. The best advice that you can give a child is: Never snitch on drug activity.

Required viewing:

 
Last edited:
Best advice to give your kids to not snitch on drug activity...I absolutely one hundred percent agree. You nailed it. While I'd like to go back and distill the language of my previous responses, I'll just use them as reminders of why to avoid posting whilst on amphetamines. Peace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top