Photo taken by Thomas E. Gaston from NY Post
Photo taken by Thomas E. Gaston from NY Post
On September 27, 2018, a classmate, Abel Cedeno (18), stabbed two other students. Matthew McCree (15), and Ariane LaBoy (16). A witness states that Cedeno was hit by a pencil which was thrown by McCree. The witness stated that McCree claimed that it was an accident. Cedeno then pulled out his switchblade and stabbed McCree. After Cedeno stabbed McCree, LaBoy stepped up, and Cedeno stabbed him too.
Questions:
1. If Cedeno claims his "right to bear arms" and his right to protection, do you think his punishment would be less harsh?
2. Do you think the school needs to have stricter safety precautions to prevent another incident like this? If so, provide examples. Would the precautions violate their right to privacy?
NY Post Article
NY Post Article
6 comments:
There is a right to bear arms, but this event happened due to a thrown pencil. I don't think people really deserved to be stabbed with a switchblade over that. Seeing as how Cedeno is 18, while the victims are still minors, I don't think Cedeno deserves less of a punishment. He is an adult, he can't hide using his youth as a way to get away with assault with a deadly weapon. I just think the school should have metal detector. Other schools have those.
I agree with Joshua that Cedeno's reaction to being hit with a pencil is extreme, even if McCree purposely tried to hit him. While I can see Cedeno wanting to protect himself if McCree did "move in to strike Cedeno," as the article states, I don't think that that necessarily warrants stabbing someone, especially because Cedeno also stabbed LaBoy, who did not seem to threaten any violence against Cedeno. His right to bear arms should have been used in self-defense, but LaBoy did not appear to threaten Cedeno's safety. I agree that Cedeno should still be harshly punished, partly because it might encourage other students to not bring knives or other weapons to school so they won't face similar consequences. I found another article written after this one that states that Cedeno was bullied for his race and sexuality by other students; while I definitely do not support the bullying Cedeno received, I don't think that that excuses Cedeno's actions, especially since neither McCree nor LaBoy had bullied him before, according to Cedeno's family friend. (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bronx/bronx-teen-killed-classmate-mocked-homophobic-slurs-article-1.3527507)
I don't think Cedeno can say use the "right to bear arms" because most schools prohibit the use of weapons in school. Also seeing the circumstances of the case, Cedeno is 18 while the other victims were minors. Cedeno should have accepted that accidents happen, and even if it was on purpose blades in school are not allowed.
Innate in your right to bear arms is the necessity for your to be responsible with that right and not use it to harm others. Claiming a "right to bear arms" does not excuse criminal behavior or behavior that has harmful externalities. I agree strongly with Erin that the punishment should be harsh, and for similar reasons. I support education surrounding the "right to bear arms," and I think part of such education is to actually punish perpetrators to set an example of how not to abuse this power.
I'm interested in how self-defense will play out here, especially given that this was a public domain. How do we accurately set the bar for what is and isn't an action you can defend yourself from? If the object was a rock instead of a pencil, could self defense be called then? What if the pencil-thrower was on the attackers private property without permission?
I am in no way defending the actions of the stabber by asking these questions, as I think what he did is utterly horrible. But in asking, I would like to pose the question: where ought the boundary between self-defense and lawless action lie?
With no evidence suggesting that the throwing of the pencil was intentional, I agree with everyone and think that the "right to bear arms" will not be a sufficient enough argument for Cedeno to get a less harsh punishment. Furthermore, since Cedeno is 18 (and technically adult), his youth cannot be used as a justification for his reckless actions. This means he should not get a less harsh punishment than intended. It is important to remember that this confrontation began with something that many people will probably consider as an accident. While some other sort of action against Cedeno could possibly excuse his actions, a thrown pencil is not enough of a dangerous action to warrant a violent response like pulling out a switchblade.
After reading the post that Erin linked in her response, I still do not think that Cedeno should get a less harsh punishment. While the post shines a different light on the actions before the stabbing (broken pieces of pencil were being thrown at Cedeno's head intentionally), they still do not excuse a horrific action such as this one.
I agree with everyone else that the right to bear arms will not be an argument, since the right to bear arms doesn't give you the right to use it for no substantial reason. He did not need to protect himself, as the mere throwing of a pencil does not put his life at risk in any way. HIs decision to kill two other students was completely insane and the situation was blown out of proportion, so there is no way to argue that such a horrific incident should be treated less harshly. After such an incident, the school should incorporate stricter rules to prevent such a thing from happening again, such as daily checks to make sure nobody is carrying any dangerous weapons or routine locker searches.
Post a Comment