The death of Johnathan Lewis is tragic and should be a lesson for us all.
https://x.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1724061260994531534?s=20
‘Heart of a champion’: father grieves son beaten to death by mob in Las Vegas
A grieving father in Nevada has paid tribute to his 17-year-old son’s “heart of a champion” and denounced the scourge of teenage violence after the boy was beaten to death by a mob outside his high school for defending a smaller child.
Jonathan Lewis said his son – also named Jonathan – died at the University medical center in Las Vegas last Tuesday, one week after the attack involving about 15 others near the city’s Rancho high school.
Witnesses say the teenager was pushed into a fence then repeatedly struck by the members of the mob when he stood up for a younger friend who had been thrown into a trash can.
Doing a forensic analysis of something like this is terrible. It’s particularly terrible because Lewis is a teenager and teenagers are unable to carry weapons to defend themselves.
I don’t want to say he should have watched another person get bullied and shoved into a trash can because I believe in protecting the innocent.
Lewis died of head trauma, beat to death by a large group. Reality is that it’s impossible to defend yourself against a mob without a weapon. It’s death by a hundred punches.
The safest course of action with a mob, and the only course of action when facing a mob unarmed, is to run.
Don’t let yourself get mobbed. Even with a bunch of teenagers, it’s a death sentence.
In the video it looks like he receives a couple of head stomps too. That’s never good.
.
I was wondering and waiting to see what the instigating event was.
The thugs had stolen something from a younger, smaller kid, and Jonathon confronted them to get it back. In response, they beat him to death.
.
Try them all as adults. Execute them.
An observation, made repeatedly by L. Neil Smith, Oleg Volk, and others, is that the words of the Constitution do not permit disarming minors. Smith put it roughly this way: the question “at what age does the Bill of Rights start to apply” is wrong, because the Bill of Right doesn’t apply to you and me ordinary citizens. Instead, it applies only to politicians, prohibiting them from doing various things.
For example, the 1st Amendment words “Congress shall pass no law…” apply no matter what age group that law is aimed at. School bureaucrats, as a rule, refuse to understand this. (Either that, or they object to free speech for individuals of any age.)
Schools and school districts have been sued over locker search policies that let them open and search lockers at any point, for any reason (or no reason at all).
.
If the schools and districts can’t get the cases mooted (by filing continuances and delaying actions until the student plaintiffs graduate or leave school), they almost always lose on 4th Amendment grounds.
.
The moral of the story is, middle and high school students — read: 11-17 year olds — have the same 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures as adults. (Similarly, elementary schools, which often don’t have lockers, can’t just search any kid’s backpack without a reasonable, articulable suspicion of contraband or wrong-doing.) Depending on the courts and judges, the kids might have even stronger protections than adults; school attendance is compulsory — they don’t have the option of simply not going, and thereby avoiding the searches.
.
The only problem is, none of the administrators are ever held personally liable for damages for these things. After they lose, they just re-word and/or re-number the policy so it’s “fixed” but has the exact same effect. Rinse and repeat. I understand some districts even have a line item in the budget for defending lawsuits and paying restitution, so continuing the violations literally costs them nothing that wasn’t already allocated for it.
Scott Adams was right