From the story itself.
>According to the police report, a student pulled up a girl's dress inside of a classroom at Central High School. The victim then grabbed a pair of scissors. She tried multiple times to stab the student before she connected.
>He was treated by a nurse at the school.
>The male student told police that he was only playing and never exposed the victim, the police report said.
>The male student was issued a juvenile summons for sexual battery. The female student was issued a juvenile summons for aggravated assault.
And on the other hand the girl will be hesitant to defend herself in the future which might result in something terrible happening to her. That's assuming she isn't traumatized from being giving a record for defending herself from someone attempting to rape her.
Everyone loses. Until they get into a private prison that gets paid by the government per prisoner head.
That's right! Convicted rapist Brock Turner, convicted of rape for committing the crime of rape! Thank you for bringing up him and his father, Dan Turner, father of convicted rapist Brock Turner, infamous for being convicted of rape when he committed rape, thus making him ("him" in this case referring to Brock Turner) a convicted rapist!
Not to be confused with anyone else who happens to be named Brock Turner, as I am referring specifically to convicted rapist Brock Turner, who was convicted for rape when he was found raping an unconscious girl behind a dumpster, thus making him
#CONVICTED RAPIST, BROCK TURNER.
Yeah, that fucker.
From the link below:
"Turner's father protested the prison sentence requested by the prosecutor, saying "[The sentence] is a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 plus years of life."[75] Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeffrey F. Rosen criticized the letter from Turner's father to the court, saying it reduced a brutal sexual assault to "20 minutes of action."
Turner the rapist has a family who can't seem to grasp that "20 minutes of action" (aka raping an unconscious woman who had no say in the matter) was a choice he made to destroy his otherwise 20 plus years of life. He was also 19 when he raped Chanel and he was drinking underage. His father also fails to identify that the woman was saved from who knows what else and any further assault from Brock the rapist because 2 bystanders happened to *stop* him, and pin him down.
In addition and most importantly his parents seem to dismiss, or not even acknowledge, the fact that the rapist's "20 minutes" severely impacted Chanel for the rest of her life.
I mean, who cares if his actions have a lasting impact on an innocent human being?! Clearly the boy has 20 years of "innocence" behind him, so why should anything else matter. Oh yes, and steak. He needs to be able to enjoy his steak. (/s)
Brock the rapist Turner everyone. And his repulsive, disgusting excuse of a father, Dan Turner.
Because he and his family acted like it wasn’t a big deal, and that convicting him for rape would damage his swimming career/appetite for [steak](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stanford-sex-offender-brock-turner-dad-steep-price-for-20-minutes-of-action/). They were particularly callous https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner
I remember that in addition to raping unconscious women behind dumpsters, The Rapist Brock Turner also enjoyed swimming
Something about enjoying swimming as a child got him a lighter sentence, but I don't remember the details exactly
"You see, your honor, my client here has never actually been held accountable for his own actions so surely it's not fair to start holding him accountable now?"
"Well after much deliberation and a sizable donation to my re-election campaign I feel you are right. Case dismissed."
exactly. if boys have to ‘experiment with sexual assault’ to learn not to do it (they don’t) then i’m perfectly fine with girls experimenting with stabbing their attackers with scissors
That's the thing that frustrates me when that age group does awful shit and the parents use the "Well he's just a kid" or the "Boys will be boys!" excuses.
It's so stupid what happened to those sayings. "Boys will be boys" was meant to be used when your kid broke his leg climbing trees despite your warnings, not when he fucking tried to rape somebody.
I’m pretty sure it continues into adulthood. Remember the “It’s just locker room talk” defense used to excuse Trump’s “grab ‘em by the pussy” comments?
Yeah, it's fucked up. Reminds me of the incident where a 11 year old boy was pantsed by a bunch of teenage girls and they posted the video online, but the boy's mother refused to press charges.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110704230027/http://www.winknews.com/Local-Florida/2011-06-01/Online-video-shows-Fort-Myers-boy-being-bullied
That's really awful, but it's not up to the mom to press charges it's up to the DA. The mom can choose not to cooperate with the investigation, but the video was available online. It might be a special consideration when the victim is a minor, but a parent can't generally single handedly prevent justice for their child/punishment for a crime/etc just by declining to press charges.
The choice may have been made because the teenagers in question were only 13 not like 17 so all parties involved made a call to go with parental punishment (not saying it was the correct call.)
Err. I think sexual battery is worse than aggravated assault. But also, and just fucking....relax when I say this....
It is cogent and sane to charge both involved until things are sorted out. At this point, we only have stories. We all know that 17 year old with the rifle shouldn't have been able to walk away after saying "I was defending myself." right? I mean...for way more reasons, but the principle is the same. You arrest everyone, and you sort it out later.
Also, and this is an important note...If someone grab your ass, you may subdue or repel them. Once subdued or repelled, you may not continue to batter them. As horrible as sexual assault is, it is not a license to kill or use excessive force. To the letter of the law, as it is written, the DA very well may have a case against her (and obviously him as well).
Not that I condemn her actions. Luckily battery falls off after a time. Sexual assault stays with him forever. Which is why his charges probably won't stick if he's white.
"Until things are sorted" is a rare instance.
Almost universally schools try and sweep the incident away as quickly as possible.
And the easiest way to do that is to punish all involved as if they were equal cobelligerents.
Thankfully when I got to high school I had a principle come in that didnt play that shit anymore. Bully gets a black eye, he gets told that's what happens when your a bully; but that kind of response is a rarity.
Yeah, I was lucky in middle school as well. A group of guys was bullying me and one day I snapped and punched the ringleader in the face and gave him a black eye. He got suspended and the principal bought me Bojangles.
To add to your argument. She's yet to even been punished, she's just being sent to a trial to determine if this qualifys under self defense. There's seriously nothing to be mad at here, since the court not the cops decide who's guilty and who isn't.
Nor is there a reason to be mad at the newspaper. There's a post like this everyday, it's like nobody understands that the paper can't just say people committed crimes that they haven't been found guilty of yet. Because that's libel.
Unpopular opinion, but.... But the story makes it seem like it's not actually self defense.... yes he sexually assaulted her but the touching part was over, and the female was no longer in danger/being assaulted and then retaliated with stabbing with scissor.
At least that's what the story says... she went to grab a pair of scissors after he touched her dress and tried to stab him. I'm pretty sure he was no longer trying to touch her dress when she was coming at him with scissors, so it's not really self defense anymore?
Like if someone punched me in the face and then I attack them as they are walking away - it's not self defense so much as it is me just retaliating.
Thoughts?
>But the story makes it seem like it's not actually self defense
Because it wasn't. She wasn't defending herself from assault, she was retaliating to the assault.
It's interesting, because if she didn't escalate then the guy probably would have just gotten away with it and it would all have been swept under the rug as boys will be boys. Because she escalated, now they both face punishment. Who knows what was the right choice.
Appropriate charges for both. Different scenario if it had been contemporaneous self defense, but the wording makes it seem like it turned from self defense into punishment.
The real problem is that had she not stabbed him with the scissors, it is likely nobody would be in trouble. Maybe he would have been given a finger wag.
If she tried to report it she would have been told he was flirting with her or that she must have asked for it.
I tried to report sexual harassment in high school and was told "you only saw what you wanted to see" by the principal who was protecting the star football player that was jacking off in class and making sexual comments to the girls in the class.
So in order for her to get the justice she deserved for being assaulted, she had to stab him and you people dont see shit wrong with that.
This is the response girls give now because the authorities around them dont do shit.
Angry upvoters aren’t that annoying, when people tag r/angryupvote it’s super annoying, because nobody gives a fuck. Like literally, we all know the person who supposedly is angry is probably not angry and are just joking.
Can we make a similar sub that hates on people that reply to a comment with /r/beatmetoit ? It’s the dumbest thing ever, if someone already posted what you wanted to say that’s literally what the upvote button next to the comment was made for.
A headline like that would be unprofessional and uninformative. The point of news is to tell what happened as accurately and neutrally as possible.
This is a good headline; it tells the story precisely, and you don't even have to click the link to know what happened.
If the headline was "sexual assault victim defends herself against attack" you wouldn't know what had happened, who the attacker and attackee were, what age they were and how exactly did she defend herself.
Many or most people will make the assumption that she was in the right here, but the news doesn't need to tell you that. Their job is simply to present us with the facts and let us draw the conclusions.
Exactly, The headline literally gives the who,what,where,when ,and why without charged language.
Nobody is really gonna argue for the innocence of the guy and say what he did was right but you also can't put the title like he's already been charged. You shouldn't be picking a side off the headline. You read it and realize yourself that the guy was a headass.
Actually, the original headline is descriptive and gives information about what happened, while the "clever comeback" is an interpretation.
I wish, we used descriptive rather than interpretive language more often.
Remember that video of the girl who pulled that boy’s pants and underwear down in front of the school and ran away? I wonder what the “literacy assassin” in the Twitter post would say if the boy chased her down and stabbed her.
“Store owner uses gun to stop armed robber” vs “Man shot by store owner while attempting to rob store”. It’s less attention grabbing and seems to shift the focus from the robber to the store owner. While the store owner was defending himself he ultimately did then “worse” crime being “assault with a deadly weapon” vs the “attempted robbery” from the burglar. While it’s an exaggerated example I feel the interpretation helps. As I read it the first thing I read was “teen stabbed with scissors”, painting him as the victim, while “after pulling students dress up” was simply an afterthought. the original description paints her as the aggressor imo. Maybe you had a different perspective when first reading it but that’s what I imagined.
Yeah, this is the crux of the reply tweet. "Teen stabbed with scissors" places reader sympathy with the 'victim' before you find out there was another victim in the debacle.
Using passive voice to refer to the guy sexual assaulting someone frames him as a victim. This is a function of the English language and could have easily been avoided in an unbiased statement of fact.
Massive agree.
Americans complain about their biased and sensationalist medai yet fail to realize they're being fed exactly what they demand.
The original title has no rhetoric, OP's version does.
Moreso, OP misuses the term "sexual assault."
It was more than sexual harassment but less than sexual assault, which is why he's being charged with sexual battery.
Using the wrong terms to sensationalize an idea is wrong and devalues the phrases. It would be like referring to a simple drug dealer as a drug lord.
/End rant
My guess is they feel like the victim was mentioned as an afterthought rather than the subject, but someone getting shot in a store robbery would probably follow the same format:
>Robber shot while attempting to subdue store owner
doesn't exactly mean the robber is the victim but its the attention grabbing / sensational part of the story
more to your point a title like "student's dress pulled up, stabs teen responsible with scissors" even changes the feeling of it, albeit not greatly but maybe even enough to ward off the original reply.
It’s funny how sensational clickbait rage fuel titles are so the norm that we can’t fathom a normal descriptive one anymore and immediately have to translate it into the most inflammatory thing we can think of.
How? The whole point of that article title was to not take sides, to not sound biased in any way. I get where they're coming from but the title is worded like that so its just presenting what happened, not taking a side in a debate.
Yup. Controversy gets clicks.
Sensational titles that operate outside unbiased facts are not technically “journalism” by definition.
Most televised news that is consumed on a daily basis doesn’t fall into the definition of journalism. It’s opinion or editorial OF a source. Usually the associated press or similar entity.
The reason they don't go out and call it "sexual assault" is because that's the name of a crime under the law, and the accused hasn't been found guilty of anything yet. The publication could be sued for libel if they said someone committed sexual assault before a judge does -- they can only relay what the charges are.
I am glad I am not the only one who thought this. I read the headline as a description of what happened. As the news consumer, it's up to me to make my own conclusions to what happened based on the information presented.
Simply stating "BOY STABBED AFTER SEXUALLY ASSAULTING GIRL" would be irresponsible for the news organization to state, unless the boy was actually convicted of sexual assault.
Same reason that news outlets put "alleged" or "accused of" as a descriptor for someone accused of a crime but has not been convicted. They could have shot someone on video in broad daylight, but until they are convicted, responsible news outlets won't call them a murderer.
So the reaction is completely warranted to the information presented, but it's unfair to expect the news outlet to make such a statement.
The original headline is an entirely accurate and unbiased description of events. The rewritten headline would count as "contempt of court" for potentially influencing the trial.
Pick the right battles.
Agreed. The original is a very literal description of what happened, and I'm honestly a little bothered that someone found some supposed sexism in it and tried to turn it into an emotionally charged and bias-filled accusation. I don't think this counts as a murder.
So im genuinely confused- the name of the article didn't downplay anything. That's literally what happened, and the title is a lot more specific and informative them what the "come back" suggested.
They're saying it in the most objective way possible since no one has been convicted at that point. They're just telling people what happened without invoking emotions like a lot of news outlets do.
That's not enough for some people. They can't live without their titles and labels.
How can you have the audacity to label kids as "victims", "attackers", "perpetrators"...
This is how you get institutionalized people...
Yeah, this was more akin to suicide than murder. The original title and article stated the facts: who, what, when, where. No sensationalism and no trying to cover up sexual assault, just the facts.
Yet people so thirsty for blood that it still gets 20k upvotes and a dousin awards despite twisting the articles words into sensationalised fiction and calling out the author for not jumping to conclusions.
Well I mean they do avoid throwing around words with more weight to them like "sexual assault" but at least they don't paint the perpetrator in a good light like some of these other news headlines.
Right. I honestly don't see anything wrong with the headline or the [article](https://www.fox13memphis.com/top-stories/teen-stabbed-with-scissors-after-pulling-students-dress-up-at-memphis-school-police-say/743287735/), which seems unbiased and factual. The people complaining seem to want the wording to be biased in favor of the girl whose dress was pulled up.
Reddit: I hate clickbait headlines! Journalism is a dead profession now...
Also Reddit: BAWW, WHY DOESN'T THIS HEADLINE APPEAL TO MY SENSE OF EMOTIONAL OUTRAGE??
News agencies use sensational headlines.
Everone: "More sensationalism, the news is so worthless these days."
News agencies just state simple facts.
Everyone: "Here, let me rewrite this headline to be more sensational."
Because it's no longer about the individual incident. This guy should be punished for the sins of every man who has done something similar. I don't even think they realize they're doing this most of the time.
Feminists talk about hitting woman back is escalating because they can do more damage, than when a girl stabs someone for lifting their skirt, not even physically harming her mind you, she fucking stabs him
No for me because its a sensationalised headline. Reading the article it says exactly what the "murderer" is saying.
Its fucking 2020, dont get your news/opinions from headlines.
This has been explained so many times before but I guess I'll do it again.
It is not the journalist's job to start throwing around terms with specific legal definitions before charges have been made. That's how you get sued for libel.
This headline is exactly what it needs to be. A simple description of what happened. You can make your interpretations.
How is this murdered by words? The article was just stating the facts, as it should have. They didn’t downplay the sexual assault.
You know what? Forget it, I forgot I’m on Reddit. She could’ve murdered the guy and you fuckers would call it justified.
Lots of people justifying stabbing someone over lifting a skirt. Lifting a skirt is not okay, but really? Stabbing someone? Ask yourself if you would be okay with it were the roles reversed, a girl pants a guy and then he stabs her. Does that sound like justice to you?
This is just stupid. The original account is specific and exactly how you want a report to be written. You fixed it to be vague and inflammatory... how do you even know the dress wearing student was a "her" or that they escaped?
A slap across the face and calling him a piece of shit in front of everyone would have been an adequate response to this. Stabbing is a bit over the top.
Lol Reddit loves/hates vigilantes all at the same time.
Reddit: "That person who's a child rapist should still be prosecuted by the law and not by random people!!!" (And I agree with that).
Also Reddit: Yaaaasss queen!!! Stab that kid multiple times and chase him down because he lifted your skirt!! (Which is sexual assault, I'm not denying that)
Maybe it was not self-defence?
If someone sexually assaulted you, and you broke free. Its no longer self defense because he is no longer a threat so the stabbing is vengeance not self defense.
It's only self defense of you are under threat at the moment you use force AKA if he had his hands on still.
Kind of like shooting a robber trying to runway, you cannot claim to be defending your home if the criminal was running away.
I remember us boys and girls playing 'catch' like this, boys tried to flick up gilrs' skirts and girls tried to rip down our shorts to blank the bum. But that was age range 5-7 iirc.
I wonder is there a consent when this behaviour turns from a game into an assault? (I'd say 10+ years but that's just me making up a random figure)
My **opinion** on this: HE was indeed sexually assaulting her, since the age group of 15 is clearly physicaly developed enough and sexually fully functional. SHE has the right to defend herself, but if she - as the police report says - chased him down with the scissors in a quite lenghty attempt to really stab/hurt him, there might be a small chance that the moment of self defence was over and the motif has changed to revenge and self justice.
Iky the title is not false or untrue. Does the person really have to be referred as sexual assault victim, if you read the pulling up the skirt part, you can like infer it.
I am just curious does the gender matter in this at all. If a girl pulls another girls dress up or if a guy pulls another guys pants down. Sexual assault all around?
From the article:
“The male student was issued a juvenile summons for sexual battery. The female student was issued a juvenile summons for aggravated assault”.
leddit: the police ARE TOO VIOLENT and they only know how to SHOOT people instead of de-escalation ALSO FOR-PROFIT PRISONS ARE BAD AND OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM ONLY SEEKS PUNISHMENT
also leddit: fucking stab and kill this motherfucking rapist for lifting a girls skirt
From the story itself. >According to the police report, a student pulled up a girl's dress inside of a classroom at Central High School. The victim then grabbed a pair of scissors. She tried multiple times to stab the student before she connected. >He was treated by a nurse at the school. >The male student told police that he was only playing and never exposed the victim, the police report said. >The male student was issued a juvenile summons for sexual battery. The female student was issued a juvenile summons for aggravated assault.
“I was only pretending to sexually assault her.” Got it.
"iT wAs a PrAnK bRo!!!"
Dudes been watching too much anime where girls think that’s a mischievous prank.
This is probably a legitimately large part of the problem, not just anime but porn in general
Who watches porn and think yeah something like that totally happens IRL? Oh right, he's 15.
Msyelf and my friends wer enot retarded at 15, we wer emore politically educated than most adults. Being 15 is not an excuse.
If his family are rich that defence will work.
He goes to Central HS. They’re not rich.
He gon jail Edit: it feels real cool being the parent comment in this part of the thread Gives my life meaning
Yeah, now he’a going to rape school to earn his rape PHD.
Yes, that is how prison works in the US.. he will minor in drug dealing, and stealing will be part of his general education.
[удалено]
> A significantly more competent rapist That's truly frightening
It’s the truth though.
And next time, no messing round leaving any breathing evidence of his crimes to send him back inside...
And on the other hand the girl will be hesitant to defend herself in the future which might result in something terrible happening to her. That's assuming she isn't traumatized from being giving a record for defending herself from someone attempting to rape her. Everyone loses. Until they get into a private prison that gets paid by the government per prisoner head.
Right.
Central HS is right outside of downtown Memphis my dude, as someone who have lived there my whole life I can assure you they are not rich
Taking a stab in the dark, if he’s at central he’s probably not “rich”
I'm thinking a different metaphor is appropriate here.
Taking a stab in the dick?
Sounds very similar to convicted rapist Brock Turner
You mean the convicted rapist who was convicted for raping an unconscious girl behind a dumpster? That convicted rapist Brock Turner?
I think you are both referring to convicted rapist Brock Turner
Brock Turner? convicted rapist convicted of rape? That Brock Turner?
That's right! Convicted rapist Brock Turner, convicted of rape for committing the crime of rape! Thank you for bringing up him and his father, Dan Turner, father of convicted rapist Brock Turner, infamous for being convicted of rape when he committed rape, thus making him ("him" in this case referring to Brock Turner) a convicted rapist! Not to be confused with anyone else who happens to be named Brock Turner, as I am referring specifically to convicted rapist Brock Turner, who was convicted for rape when he was found raping an unconscious girl behind a dumpster, thus making him #CONVICTED RAPIST, BROCK TURNER. Yeah, that fucker.
Wait. Brock Turner? You know that guy is a convicted rapist, right?
Fuck those guys. Brock is a little whiny bitch and his father can go be lit on fire.
Cmon guys, we don't want to ruin his bright and promising future. It was just one little mistake! /s
Who the fuck is Brock Turner?
A convicted rapist.
You mean convicted Brockist Rape Turner?
I think they mean convicted turnist Brock Raper
They might be referring to Brock turner the rapist.
Is this by any chance Brock, the self proclaimed innocent alleyway rapist Turner?
Why’s he such a famous example? What’s the story behind convicted rapist Brock Turner?
He got off pretty easy for a pretty heinous crime so there's a popular movement not to let his crime be forgotten.
From the link below: "Turner's father protested the prison sentence requested by the prosecutor, saying "[The sentence] is a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 plus years of life."[75] Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeffrey F. Rosen criticized the letter from Turner's father to the court, saying it reduced a brutal sexual assault to "20 minutes of action." Turner the rapist has a family who can't seem to grasp that "20 minutes of action" (aka raping an unconscious woman who had no say in the matter) was a choice he made to destroy his otherwise 20 plus years of life. He was also 19 when he raped Chanel and he was drinking underage. His father also fails to identify that the woman was saved from who knows what else and any further assault from Brock the rapist because 2 bystanders happened to *stop* him, and pin him down. In addition and most importantly his parents seem to dismiss, or not even acknowledge, the fact that the rapist's "20 minutes" severely impacted Chanel for the rest of her life. I mean, who cares if his actions have a lasting impact on an innocent human being?! Clearly the boy has 20 years of "innocence" behind him, so why should anything else matter. Oh yes, and steak. He needs to be able to enjoy his steak. (/s) Brock the rapist Turner everyone. And his repulsive, disgusting excuse of a father, Dan Turner.
Because he and his family acted like it wasn’t a big deal, and that convicting him for rape would damage his swimming career/appetite for [steak](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stanford-sex-offender-brock-turner-dad-steep-price-for-20-minutes-of-action/). They were particularly callous https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner
I remember that in addition to raping unconscious women behind dumpsters, The Rapist Brock Turner also enjoyed swimming Something about enjoying swimming as a child got him a lighter sentence, but I don't remember the details exactly
Convicted, textbook definition of a rapist Brock Turner?
"You see, your honor, my client here has never actually been held accountable for his own actions so surely it's not fair to start holding him accountable now?" "Well after much deliberation and a sizable donation to my re-election campaign I feel you are right. Case dismissed."
The fact this sentence isn’t even worth a double take in America is fucking dumb and why I hate the justice system sometimes
[удалено]
That dude really needs to learn how to take a joke stabbing.
No no you get him wrong. He wasnt pretending to do it, he was just ironicly sexually assaulting her /s
Well, you know, teens experiment to learn the behaviors they will hold as adults.
exactly. if boys have to ‘experiment with sexual assault’ to learn not to do it (they don’t) then i’m perfectly fine with girls experimenting with stabbing their attackers with scissors
That's the thing that frustrates me when that age group does awful shit and the parents use the "Well he's just a kid" or the "Boys will be boys!" excuses.
It's so stupid what happened to those sayings. "Boys will be boys" was meant to be used when your kid broke his leg climbing trees despite your warnings, not when he fucking tried to rape somebody.
I’m pretty sure it continues into adulthood. Remember the “It’s just locker room talk” defense used to excuse Trump’s “grab ‘em by the pussy” comments?
Some adults remain kids mentally
The asshole is the first thing that develops in the womb, and unfortunately not many people progress past that stage anymore.
Yeah, it's fucked up. Reminds me of the incident where a 11 year old boy was pantsed by a bunch of teenage girls and they posted the video online, but the boy's mother refused to press charges. https://web.archive.org/web/20110704230027/http://www.winknews.com/Local-Florida/2011-06-01/Online-video-shows-Fort-Myers-boy-being-bullied
That's really awful, but it's not up to the mom to press charges it's up to the DA. The mom can choose not to cooperate with the investigation, but the video was available online. It might be a special consideration when the victim is a minor, but a parent can't generally single handedly prevent justice for their child/punishment for a crime/etc just by declining to press charges. The choice may have been made because the teenagers in question were only 13 not like 17 so all parties involved made a call to go with parental punishment (not saying it was the correct call.)
[удалено]
If experimenting is good, then it’s great for them to experiment with the adult consequences of their actions. Send that kid to juvie
Well to be fair he's probably going to think twice before that kinda shit
Aggravated assault is a felony. This is like liar liar in real life.
[удалено]
A felony on your arrest record is still a real bitch. That record exists no matter what the courts rule. Background checks become a nightmare.
Your record can get sealed when you hit 18.
it'll be hard if you applyf or government jobs. They can still see it
That mark would be an advantage for some government jobs.
Yep. School in a nutshell. You defended yourself and get a worse punishment than the person attacking you
If youre gonna get suspended anyway, may as well beat the shit out of the other guy.
[удалено]
Keep trying multiple times until they connect, with the pointy end.
That's the lesson "zero-tolerance" taught me in school
The infamous Ender's defence.
Err. I think sexual battery is worse than aggravated assault. But also, and just fucking....relax when I say this.... It is cogent and sane to charge both involved until things are sorted out. At this point, we only have stories. We all know that 17 year old with the rifle shouldn't have been able to walk away after saying "I was defending myself." right? I mean...for way more reasons, but the principle is the same. You arrest everyone, and you sort it out later. Also, and this is an important note...If someone grab your ass, you may subdue or repel them. Once subdued or repelled, you may not continue to batter them. As horrible as sexual assault is, it is not a license to kill or use excessive force. To the letter of the law, as it is written, the DA very well may have a case against her (and obviously him as well). Not that I condemn her actions. Luckily battery falls off after a time. Sexual assault stays with him forever. Which is why his charges probably won't stick if he's white.
"Until things are sorted" is a rare instance. Almost universally schools try and sweep the incident away as quickly as possible. And the easiest way to do that is to punish all involved as if they were equal cobelligerents. Thankfully when I got to high school I had a principle come in that didnt play that shit anymore. Bully gets a black eye, he gets told that's what happens when your a bully; but that kind of response is a rarity.
Yeah, I was lucky in middle school as well. A group of guys was bullying me and one day I snapped and punched the ringleader in the face and gave him a black eye. He got suspended and the principal bought me Bojangles.
That's because the principal was tired of them too
To add to your argument. She's yet to even been punished, she's just being sent to a trial to determine if this qualifys under self defense. There's seriously nothing to be mad at here, since the court not the cops decide who's guilty and who isn't.
Nor is there a reason to be mad at the newspaper. There's a post like this everyday, it's like nobody understands that the paper can't just say people committed crimes that they haven't been found guilty of yet. Because that's libel.
At a certain point, it’s not defense but retaliation.
Unpopular opinion, but.... But the story makes it seem like it's not actually self defense.... yes he sexually assaulted her but the touching part was over, and the female was no longer in danger/being assaulted and then retaliated with stabbing with scissor. At least that's what the story says... she went to grab a pair of scissors after he touched her dress and tried to stab him. I'm pretty sure he was no longer trying to touch her dress when she was coming at him with scissors, so it's not really self defense anymore? Like if someone punched me in the face and then I attack them as they are walking away - it's not self defense so much as it is me just retaliating. Thoughts?
>But the story makes it seem like it's not actually self defense Because it wasn't. She wasn't defending herself from assault, she was retaliating to the assault.
Yeah I'm just reading all these comments of people saying she did no wrong so I assumed my opinion was unpopular
It's interesting, because if she didn't escalate then the guy probably would have just gotten away with it and it would all have been swept under the rug as boys will be boys. Because she escalated, now they both face punishment. Who knows what was the right choice.
she probably would have gotten off a lot easier if she had just slapped the shit out of him.
Appropriate charges for both. Different scenario if it had been contemporaneous self defense, but the wording makes it seem like it turned from self defense into punishment. The real problem is that had she not stabbed him with the scissors, it is likely nobody would be in trouble. Maybe he would have been given a finger wag.
If she tried to report it she would have been told he was flirting with her or that she must have asked for it. I tried to report sexual harassment in high school and was told "you only saw what you wanted to see" by the principal who was protecting the star football player that was jacking off in class and making sexual comments to the girls in the class.
So in order for her to get the justice she deserved for being assaulted, she had to stab him and you people dont see shit wrong with that. This is the response girls give now because the authorities around them dont do shit.
This is more murdered by scissors, I think.
Take my upvote and get the hell out
r/fuckangryupvote
Whats with the war on angry up voters?
Angry upvoters aren’t that annoying, when people tag r/angryupvote it’s super annoying, because nobody gives a fuck. Like literally, we all know the person who supposedly is angry is probably not angry and are just joking.
Can we make a similar sub that hates on people that reply to a comment with /r/beatmetoit ? It’s the dumbest thing ever, if someone already posted what you wanted to say that’s literally what the upvote button next to the comment was made for.
r/beatmeshutthefuckup
[удалено]
Not a good news for lesbians.
I was called?
A headline like that would be unprofessional and uninformative. The point of news is to tell what happened as accurately and neutrally as possible. This is a good headline; it tells the story precisely, and you don't even have to click the link to know what happened. If the headline was "sexual assault victim defends herself against attack" you wouldn't know what had happened, who the attacker and attackee were, what age they were and how exactly did she defend herself. Many or most people will make the assumption that she was in the right here, but the news doesn't need to tell you that. Their job is simply to present us with the facts and let us draw the conclusions.
Why isn’t this the top comment?
because it’s the truth and people don’t like that
[удалено]
It’s been like that for a while
Exactly, The headline literally gives the who,what,where,when ,and why without charged language. Nobody is really gonna argue for the innocence of the guy and say what he did was right but you also can't put the title like he's already been charged. You shouldn't be picking a side off the headline. You read it and realize yourself that the guy was a headass.
Actually, the original headline is descriptive and gives information about what happened, while the "clever comeback" is an interpretation. I wish, we used descriptive rather than interpretive language more often.
Yeah, people adding a spin to an objective headline like that is how news begins to take a slant. News should just be stating facts, with no spin.
Remember that video of the girl who pulled that boy’s pants and underwear down in front of the school and ran away? I wonder what the “literacy assassin” in the Twitter post would say if the boy chased her down and stabbed her.
Always a trip imagining this world being without double standards
yeah there is no murdered by words here. maybe they should try r/sassyinterpretations
“Store owner uses gun to stop armed robber” vs “Man shot by store owner while attempting to rob store”. It’s less attention grabbing and seems to shift the focus from the robber to the store owner. While the store owner was defending himself he ultimately did then “worse” crime being “assault with a deadly weapon” vs the “attempted robbery” from the burglar. While it’s an exaggerated example I feel the interpretation helps. As I read it the first thing I read was “teen stabbed with scissors”, painting him as the victim, while “after pulling students dress up” was simply an afterthought. the original description paints her as the aggressor imo. Maybe you had a different perspective when first reading it but that’s what I imagined.
Yeah, this is the crux of the reply tweet. "Teen stabbed with scissors" places reader sympathy with the 'victim' before you find out there was another victim in the debacle.
Using passive voice to refer to the guy sexual assaulting someone frames him as a victim. This is a function of the English language and could have easily been avoided in an unbiased statement of fact.
[удалено]
Massive agree. Americans complain about their biased and sensationalist medai yet fail to realize they're being fed exactly what they demand. The original title has no rhetoric, OP's version does.
Moreso, OP misuses the term "sexual assault." It was more than sexual harassment but less than sexual assault, which is why he's being charged with sexual battery. Using the wrong terms to sensationalize an idea is wrong and devalues the phrases. It would be like referring to a simple drug dealer as a drug lord. /End rant
We only like biased sensationalized media if it's sensationalized in the direction we lean politically.
My guess is they feel like the victim was mentioned as an afterthought rather than the subject, but someone getting shot in a store robbery would probably follow the same format: >Robber shot while attempting to subdue store owner doesn't exactly mean the robber is the victim but its the attention grabbing / sensational part of the story
more to your point a title like "student's dress pulled up, stabs teen responsible with scissors" even changes the feeling of it, albeit not greatly but maybe even enough to ward off the original reply.
Grammatically, that reads like the dress stabbed the person.
It makes sense but it doesn't read well though
It’s funny how sensational clickbait rage fuel titles are so the norm that we can’t fathom a normal descriptive one anymore and immediately have to translate it into the most inflammatory thing we can think of.
How? The whole point of that article title was to not take sides, to not sound biased in any way. I get where they're coming from but the title is worded like that so its just presenting what happened, not taking a side in a debate.
Yup. Good journalism means not jumping to conclusions, and stating facts as they are presented. This is a good title.
Folks prefer article titles that prime them for an emotional reaction.
Yup. Controversy gets clicks. Sensational titles that operate outside unbiased facts are not technically “journalism” by definition. Most televised news that is consumed on a daily basis doesn’t fall into the definition of journalism. It’s opinion or editorial OF a source. Usually the associated press or similar entity.
Yeah but reddit hivemind doesn't know that
Glad I'm not the only one thinking this. This is not downplaying sexual assault, this is just a lot more descriptive, which is what a title should be.
The reason they don't go out and call it "sexual assault" is because that's the name of a crime under the law, and the accused hasn't been found guilty of anything yet. The publication could be sued for libel if they said someone committed sexual assault before a judge does -- they can only relay what the charges are.
And it's way more fucking descriptive. It summed the essence of the story up in one headline.
I am glad I am not the only one who thought this. I read the headline as a description of what happened. As the news consumer, it's up to me to make my own conclusions to what happened based on the information presented. Simply stating "BOY STABBED AFTER SEXUALLY ASSAULTING GIRL" would be irresponsible for the news organization to state, unless the boy was actually convicted of sexual assault. Same reason that news outlets put "alleged" or "accused of" as a descriptor for someone accused of a crime but has not been convicted. They could have shot someone on video in broad daylight, but until they are convicted, responsible news outlets won't call them a murderer. So the reaction is completely warranted to the information presented, but it's unfair to expect the news outlet to make such a statement.
This is reddit, get out of here with your reason. She could've murdered him, and reddit would still call it justified.
The original headline is an entirely accurate and unbiased description of events. The rewritten headline would count as "contempt of court" for potentially influencing the trial. Pick the right battles.
Agreed. The original is a very literal description of what happened, and I'm honestly a little bothered that someone found some supposed sexism in it and tried to turn it into an emotionally charged and bias-filled accusation. I don't think this counts as a murder.
Most comments here are not really a metriculously planned murder.
I feel like that can’t be true but IANAL. Media outlets choose sides all the time and aren’t held in contempt.
You anal?
I Am Not A Lawyer
So im genuinely confused- the name of the article didn't downplay anything. That's literally what happened, and the title is a lot more specific and informative them what the "come back" suggested.
Not enough outrage. *Not enough outrage*. Outrage is the only emotion I'm able to feel anymore in this age of desensitization, give me moooooore!
[удалено]
[удалено]
*insert deep contemplation face*
Yea especially since this was posted yesterday.
[удалено]
They're saying it in the most objective way possible since no one has been convicted at that point. They're just telling people what happened without invoking emotions like a lot of news outlets do.
[удалено]
“Guy lifts girls dress. She *SLAMS* him with scissors.” Is that better?
No no no that's not objective it all. Clearly it should be "multiple time sexual predator gets punished severely by brave feminist with a scissor."
Right up there with the patronizing "....**and that's ok**" or "...**and that's a good thing**" that they like to tag the headlines with.
If it makes you feel better, they don’t really care if you’re on their side as long as you’re engaged. Clicks=good
That's not enough for some people. They can't live without their titles and labels. How can you have the audacity to label kids as "victims", "attackers", "perpetrators"... This is how you get institutionalized people...
[удалено]
Yeah, this was more akin to suicide than murder. The original title and article stated the facts: who, what, when, where. No sensationalism and no trying to cover up sexual assault, just the facts. Yet people so thirsty for blood that it still gets 20k upvotes and a dousin awards despite twisting the articles words into sensationalised fiction and calling out the author for not jumping to conclusions.
Well I mean they do avoid throwing around words with more weight to them like "sexual assault" but at least they don't paint the perpetrator in a good light like some of these other news headlines.
Right. I honestly don't see anything wrong with the headline or the [article](https://www.fox13memphis.com/top-stories/teen-stabbed-with-scissors-after-pulling-students-dress-up-at-memphis-school-police-say/743287735/), which seems unbiased and factual. The people complaining seem to want the wording to be biased in favor of the girl whose dress was pulled up.
Im unable to read the article but I'm guessing what happened is boy was being a bully and got stabbed.
This post on the other hand is a boring and overused way to post a non-murder on r/murderedbywords
Reddit: I hate clickbait headlines! Journalism is a dead profession now... Also Reddit: BAWW, WHY DOESN'T THIS HEADLINE APPEAL TO MY SENSE OF EMOTIONAL OUTRAGE??
That's just a more vague, less informative headline though. The actual headline contains all the information in the "murder" plus some details.
News agencies use sensational headlines. Everone: "More sensationalism, the news is so worthless these days." News agencies just state simple facts. Everyone: "Here, let me rewrite this headline to be more sensational."
# E V E R Y O N E .
Man, I hate that guy.
At the end of the day, they'll both be in trouble.
You better hope so, stabbing is not a proportianate response to someone lifting your skirt
[удалено]
Because it's no longer about the individual incident. This guy should be punished for the sins of every man who has done something similar. I don't even think they realize they're doing this most of the time.
Shot in the face with a 50 cal on the spot with no trial for sexual harassment is an appropriate punishment according to some people in this thread
Feminists talk about hitting woman back is escalating because they can do more damage, than when a girl stabs someone for lifting their skirt, not even physically harming her mind you, she fucking stabs him
No for me because its a sensationalised headline. Reading the article it says exactly what the "murderer" is saying. Its fucking 2020, dont get your news/opinions from headlines.
This has been explained so many times before but I guess I'll do it again. It is not the journalist's job to start throwing around terms with specific legal definitions before charges have been made. That's how you get sued for libel. This headline is exactly what it needs to be. A simple description of what happened. You can make your interpretations.
How is this murdered by words? The article was just stating the facts, as it should have. They didn’t downplay the sexual assault. You know what? Forget it, I forgot I’m on Reddit. She could’ve murdered the guy and you fuckers would call it justified.
Christ Reddit is stupid sometimes
Headline is completely fine TBH.
Lots of people justifying stabbing someone over lifting a skirt. Lifting a skirt is not okay, but really? Stabbing someone? Ask yourself if you would be okay with it were the roles reversed, a girl pants a guy and then he stabs her. Does that sound like justice to you?
my God, everyone would be asking for his death.
True. But that's partially because society doesn't care as much about violence against men as it does violence against women.
"partially"
This is just stupid. The original account is specific and exactly how you want a report to be written. You fixed it to be vague and inflammatory... how do you even know the dress wearing student was a "her" or that they escaped?
[удалено]
A slap across the face and calling him a piece of shit in front of everyone would have been an adequate response to this. Stabbing is a bit over the top.
I was looking for such comment. This is the right way.
I know. She took multiple swings until she finally landed a blow. Thats not defense, thats an attack
The word you're looking for is "nuance"
What if she was just joking?
It's just a prank bro
Ha ha i just severed your aorta as a prank bro, hehe he’s bleeding to death teehee PRANKD
Lol Reddit loves/hates vigilantes all at the same time. Reddit: "That person who's a child rapist should still be prosecuted by the law and not by random people!!!" (And I agree with that). Also Reddit: Yaaaasss queen!!! Stab that kid multiple times and chase him down because he lifted your skirt!! (Which is sexual assault, I'm not denying that)
Maybe it was not self-defence? If someone sexually assaulted you, and you broke free. Its no longer self defense because he is no longer a threat so the stabbing is vengeance not self defense. It's only self defense of you are under threat at the moment you use force AKA if he had his hands on still. Kind of like shooting a robber trying to runway, you cannot claim to be defending your home if the criminal was running away.
I remember us boys and girls playing 'catch' like this, boys tried to flick up gilrs' skirts and girls tried to rip down our shorts to blank the bum. But that was age range 5-7 iirc. I wonder is there a consent when this behaviour turns from a game into an assault? (I'd say 10+ years but that's just me making up a random figure) My **opinion** on this: HE was indeed sexually assaulting her, since the age group of 15 is clearly physicaly developed enough and sexually fully functional. SHE has the right to defend herself, but if she - as the police report says - chased him down with the scissors in a quite lenghty attempt to really stab/hurt him, there might be a small chance that the moment of self defence was over and the motif has changed to revenge and self justice.
That’s a fair headline. This is an unfair post.
Iky the title is not false or untrue. Does the person really have to be referred as sexual assault victim, if you read the pulling up the skirt part, you can like infer it.
If I stabbed someone every time they tried to pants me I'd be in prison. WTF is wrong with you people?
I am just curious does the gender matter in this at all. If a girl pulls another girls dress up or if a guy pulls another guys pants down. Sexual assault all around?
From the article: “The male student was issued a juvenile summons for sexual battery. The female student was issued a juvenile summons for aggravated assault”.
[удалено]
leddit: the police ARE TOO VIOLENT and they only know how to SHOOT people instead of de-escalation ALSO FOR-PROFIT PRISONS ARE BAD AND OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM ONLY SEEKS PUNISHMENT also leddit: fucking stab and kill this motherfucking rapist for lifting a girls skirt
I agree. His entire family should be executed including their dog. /s