Kid wouldn't fight, died of injuries

Wait, how is this Barack Obama's fault?

It's a way to say they were black, without saying they're black.

Once again...

This one doesn't seem to be a Christianity problem per-se. It doesn't seem to be an overwhelming race-relations problem or even an overwhelming bully problem, the other kids clearly did not mean to kill the boy and they almost certainly expected him to fight back.

What this thing DOES sound like at first blush at least is an overwhelming problem with stupid rules and regs i.e. the kid appears to have been more afraid of some sort of system-related trouble than he was of being seriously injured.

Boomerang, any thoughts??

Ha! You knew I'd be checking this thread....

I agree with the others that this doesn't have to anything to do with Obama. I really wish you hadn't put that in your post. It's an interesting topic and deserves more consideration than it will get because of that.

I don't think it's a Christian thing, or a race thing, or a bully thing or an any-thing except maybe a middle school thing and an absolute tragedy.

I can't comprehend the "not wanting to get in trouble" thing. He might have meant get in trouble at school OR get in trouble with his family OR get into more trouble with the kids who beat him up. We'll never know exactly what he meant.

The rule in our house is fight back even if it lands you in trouble.

Mo has fought back verbally and physically and he did get in trouble with the school both times. He did not, however, get in trouble at home. We don't punish him for defending himself. Kids need to know that their parents will support them even in situations that land the kid in trouble.

He is black and he is the president. Any thing else you need too know?

Why does he hate white kids?

Yes. Today. It was published both online as well as in print media in the USA on March 4 and 5. (And in German tabloids on March 6)

I thought the only way I could answer your question would be to think like Gunga and waterman but my brain short circuted. I am going to bed now.

Is it actually the case that a kid can be attacked almost from out of the blue and get in trouble at a school for merely defending himself?

I don't think it's as simple as that. Sure, kids get in trouble in almost any school for fighting. And most kids are taught that fighting is bad. I think the kid didn't want to get in trouble all over the place, but mainly he didn't want to fight. It wasn't in him, nor in many kids or people for that matter. If he had fought back against the three boys, they would have continued fighting with him. They could have killed him on the spot.
Sadly, the only kid who was worried about getting in trouble, was the only one who shouldn't have.

One of the many benefits of humans living in societies is the drastic reduction it has had on male-on-male violence. This violence is often tempered by "feminizing" societies. Rewarding cooperation instead of aggression. I think we would be mistaken, if we took this as a call to "toughen-up" the boys. This is an anecdotal exception to the otherwise great track record of tempering male aggressive tendencies.
Why are we focusing at all on some supposed deficiency in the victim?
This is obviously a failure in the culture of that schoolyard. The adult members of society should focus their attention there.
Violence is NOT tolerated.

You dont understand the male conservative, I want to kill something mind set.

I don't understand why that should be a conservative value.
Conservative values are meant to be stabilizing, and promote principles over personal desires.
The majority of the Republican party here in the United States has no right to call itself conservative.

Well.... kind of....

It isn't usually out of the blue and I can only speak of my experience with the schools.

And I don't want to give the impression that Mo is a perfect angle -- he's not. But he isn't a bully and he isn't mean to people. In fact, I worry that he's overly sympathetic to people.

But the two times Mo has been in trouble at school he has been completely vindicated. One kid outed himself as a jerk (the teacher's word) and the other eventually got expelled for being a thug (my word). But both times Mo got in trouble and it took a while for the truth to come out.

So my answer to your question would have to be yes -- kids can get in trouble for defending themselves.

I would hate to see a young man discouraged in his sympathies. Empathy is a skill that is greatly needed in the new ever-more connected society in which we live. Empathy will serve him well in his future endeavors, especially in relation to any men still left in the mob mentality of "aggression and control".
Think of the careers in which aggression is still considered a virtue.
What is left? NFL line backer? Soldier?
Even competitive professions such as investment banking require quite a bit of empathy to be proficient.

I don't discourage his empathy but I will always insist that he stand up for himself.

It's funny that you mention NFL linebackers and soldiers. My son plays football and he's a linebacker. My brother is a career soldier -- a 3 star general (Lt. General). You'd be hard pressed to fine anyone less aggressive than these two.

Honestly, they are two of the kindest people you'd have the good fortune to know.

And my sister is an investment banker! And she's ******* beyond kind lovely.

My other sister and I are probably the most hardcore and we're the artists of the family. We'd be the first ones to beat someone up.

Preconceptions are a funny thing....

Strange, huh?

I was merely responding on the basis of you stating that you worried about him (your son) being too sympathetic.

Congratulations on your brother, sister and sons, they sound like wonderful people.
It sounds like you (and they) already see the value in empathy. I was not disparaging any profession, however, the utility of aggression in most professions is decreasing (as I previously stated).
My girlfriend is has served for 8 years in the US Army, and she trains an NFL player, in her new profession.
Again all lovely people.

Aggression in football (NFL) and fighting (military) are still valued, that is not a preconception.
I don't know if your "preconception" comment was meant as an accusation, but if it is, then I think that it is misdirected.

What preconception (if any) are you accusing me of?

Boomer, I think it's great when people can and do stand up for themselves, but we've got to admit not everyone is capable of doing that.
We tell people to play dead when they encounter a bear or cougar... but it's beyond comprehension to expect every kid to be able to stand up to one bully, never mind a group of pricks.
I always told my kids to take the first punch and then fight like hell, but we've got some irish blood, don't piss us off... other kids aren't so lucky.. lol
By the by, this isn't really directed at you, more as to the question.
Just saying, I've known a ton of kids that no matter the training, they would never have been able to defend themselves verbally or physically. Violence should never be tolerated. Sadly it is.
It's time for a hard reality check.. until shite like the housewives, or other mean reality shows and the like are given the heave ho... it's acutely obvious our society admires jerks. If adults can't prove they're above this behavior kids aren't going to change. Guns and violence have way too much pull and kids mirror that. Plain and simple.