This Casey kid, this accidental hero, slamdunked that bully as though he’d been watching his fair share of WWF.

(Warning: Completely unrealistic portrayal of what actually happened)

What Australians - and worldwide audiences, apparently - warmed to, though, was not the violence itself but the good guy vs. bad guy dynamics of the situation. The underdog trumping the leader of the pack.

Casey Heynes, 16, told A Current Affair he just snapped under pressure. He broke the rules, and became a champion of the downtrodden.

UPDATE: The kid who apparently provoked Casey now claims that he was himself the victim of bullying - and that Casey started the fracas. It remains unclear whether public opinion will now swing behind the little guy…

Sometimes breaking the rules is the best thing you can do.

We’ve seen a lot of people under pressure - extraordinary, fatal, catastrophic pressure - lately. In a disaster zone, those in charge want, need, total obedience. Otherwise the system breaks down.
But those in charge don’t always know what’s best.

There was another striking example of the benefits of civil disobedience reported over the weekend.

An Australian man, Wade Phillpott, was in a Tokyo theatre when the earthquake hit. Officials told everyone to stay in their seats. Dubious, he left.

Others followed. Moments later, the entire, massive, concrete ceiling collapsed. ``It was a big, decorated concave ceiling that dislodged and fell in one big chunk. It completely flattened the seats where 60 people were sitting,’’ he told The Australian.

He, and those who left with him, survived to tell the tale because they assessed the situation independently and ignored authorities. They broke the rules.

Civil disobedience has a long and illustrious history. Gandhi was one for standing up to the system when the system was wrong - although he wouldn’t have approved of Casey’s body slam. And he would have abhorred the civil wars breaking out across North Africa.

Gandhi used the term originally coined by Henry David Thoreau, who became something of a poster boy for anarchy although his aim really was for better government, not for no government.

According to the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Thoreau simply refused to recognise the authority of a government that no longer represented its people.

``There will never be a really free and enlightened State ... until the State comes to recognise the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly,’’ he said.

It is this individualism that is lost when Casey is suspended for fighting back, when governments prize obedience over outcomes.

In North Africa we are seeing what happens when people rise up against corrupt governments; civil disobedience on a grand and violent scale that will result in more deaths before there is a possibility of liberation.

It makes you grateful for democracy.

Back on home turf, the Australian Government - make that Australian governments, past and present - naturally detest the idea of civil disobedience.

To stage a protest now on Australian streets, people get permission from the very government they are protesting against, who then close the streets for them, organise a police escort for their safety, and so encapsulate them within the system.

Political language is eternally blandly calming. They want us to feel relaxed and comfortable. Alert but not alarmed.

They want us to keep taking the little hits, the jabs of dishonesty, the contempt. They fear our ability to slamdunk them and watch as they limp away.

Most commented

81 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • S.L says:

      06:48am | 22/03/11

      I wish they’d name the kid who was dancing around like Ali infront of his mates (who were out of camera shot but one hero walked into the frame when Casey walked off).
      Not for revenge but to embarrass him into thinking twice about trying the same stunt again! What he was wearing is the standard uniform of a loser who hangs around shopping centers or a McDonalds after dark. Baseball cap 4 sizes too big for his pin head and probably a (stolen) spraycan in his backpack ready to hassle anyone who are by themselves while his 10 mates wait in back up…......

    • L. says:

      07:37am | 22/03/11

      “I wish they’d name the kid”

      “They”..the media…did.

      Ritchard Gale.

    • S.L says:

      08:48am | 22/03/11

      Thankyou L. I hope his home phone is rung off it’s hook with crank callers.

    • Zdacey says:

      09:56am | 22/03/11

      Just don’t mistake his home for the home of an elderly couple who live in the same suburb, with the same surname.

      They’ve been inundated with calls, apparently.

    • Empire says:

      09:58am | 22/03/11

      Oh yeah lets all be big mature grownups and bully the little kid!

      Most bullies have a low self esteem usually, ( and in this case we now know for sure) from being bullied themselves.
      All I can say about the video is the big kid is lucky the little kids head didn’t smash all over the cement.
      And as far as I’m concerned the teachers need to be watching what is going on around the school, or schools need to hire or have parent volunteers who can be on duty for them.
      Every time I walk into the school grounds I am approached by children who want my help for verbal or physical (mild) bullying that is occurring.
      Even-though I am not legally allowed to intervene I do, I treat both parties of children with the same amount of respect because the person doing the dobbing isn’t always telling the entire truth.

    • Wynston Cruso says:

      12:24pm | 22/03/11

      I’d have to say it is the little kid who’s lucky his head didn’t smash all over the cement, but ok.

    • Wayne Kerr says:

      02:22pm | 22/03/11

      @Empire, “All I can say about the video is the big kid is lucky the little kids head didn’t smash all over the cement”

      If you watch the video properly you will see the little kids lower body hitting the ground with force, taking most of the impact and then Casey lets go of the upper body and lets him drop to the ground. It happens quite quickly but it is there. Too many people are sensationalising the potential injury.

      I don’t buy for one second that Casey started it. Ritchard Gale and his family are just trying to deflect attention and make him look the victim.  Typical he said she said crap after being busted.  As S.L. says he was very brave with his mates standing around and filming the incident

    • TChong says:

      06:50am | 22/03/11

      “They want us to keep taking little hits….limp away”. (final para)
      Who is “they ” Tory?
      This sounds like the Tea Party nonsense so lately beloved by The Parrot, Mitchel,Divine, Hadley , Bolt and co.
      I thought that such notable Punch contributors , like yourself Tory, didnt go for such drivel , as the nameless, undefined “Them” out to somehow “get”  us.
      Please explain?

    • L. says:

      07:40am | 22/03/11

      “Who is “they ” Tory?”

      The school principle for a start… Which is why Casey was suspended.

      Then there are the so called child “experts” who stated they Casey shouldn’t have defended himself…all in the media.

      “They” have no idea about self defense.

    • Vaunted says:

      08:56am | 22/03/11

      Hey TChong, if the (outsize baseball cap worn backward fits), feel free to wear it!

    • Adam Diver says:

      10:26am | 22/03/11

      “They” is a grouping or generalisation of people and organisations along similar lines, to make a story or article succinct. Its the neccessary of summarizing a story or opinion in less than 10,000 words. Much like “left”, “right”, “tea party” or “gen y” is used in the media, it seems “they” as a metaphor for the preceding story is more than sufficient.

      In this case “they” refers to the many layers of government, and the institutions of authority, who in the interest of our safety remove our freedoms, compicate our life, and steal our money, despite the fact that is us (being taxpayers and citizens) who grant them the power and authority in the first place.

    • papachango says:

      12:56pm | 22/03/11

      I’m confused TChong. left-leaning student protestors are (or were) generally anti-government - with slogans like ‘they’re out to get us’, ‘resist the Establishment’ etc etc. Naive possibly but there you go.

      Now it’s the Tea Party saying the same thing - anyone would think they’re a leftist organisation.

      Meanwhile the former lefty peaceniks are all for the government getting bigger, taxing more, and intervening more in indviduals lives.

      It’s a funny world we live in.

    • TCheech says:

      02:35pm | 23/03/11

      “Limping signs of Divinity, and Plathing threads of chaos…”

      witch chong by the tea party cheech? “save me”?

      oh, and by the way , “Dave’s not here man”...
      just ask Hurley or you"r uncle”
      Jacob’s Ladder leads out of the mine, the pit, the abyss.
      So…“who are “they” jerry?” ; nice question….
      they are the we that does not include me…
      they are the arc, the cirlce, the gang
      and what is it about controlling “Ewe & the weather”?
      J’edi’s and J’esus
      congregations and conjugations
      Star Wars and machines that cause Earthquakes…
      Quakers, oats and Porridge…
      the two Ronny’s or the strata-gym of “Rise Of Nations”...
      Major Mitchell is both a cockatoo and someone to read about on his path through the Pyranesse, not to be confused with Hanna baa l…
      Squid pro quo Clear eyes…
      oh and please tell me your not still struggling with the symbollogy of “gangs of new york”, Horris in “chinatown” or scarlet’s interpolation in “lost in translation”...

      oh and while we’re disguising them & they
      consider us & our…

      ““switching from reality to dream sequences pulls the wool over our eyes.”” The Advertiser, July 23, 2010.

      Now, what’s with the Ours silvia?

    • mary says:

      06:56am | 22/03/11

      Nice going Tory. Two ways to stop a bully is by exposing them or act like a bigger bully, cause bullies usually act out of fear or because they’re following some stupid example and don’t know any better. Same with our governments, exposing them is a good way to go. Keep up the good work you guys.

    • Erick says:

      07:09am | 22/03/11

      A splendid and thoughtful article! Of course, the Internet feeds into all this by allowing true mass communication for the first time in history. No doubt that’s why so many governments are trying to censor it.

    • Zeta says:

      07:32am | 22/03/11

      Godwin reckoned by the time we had true mass communication the need for Government would disappear and we’d all live in perfect pirate utopias.

      We don’t and we don’t.

    • Bruno says:

      11:33am | 22/03/11

      If I was them I would not try to censor it, I would be encouraging it. Its not like we get along or even agree for the benefit of progress and common prosperity. Long after we are gone our descendants will be living the same selfish lives as a result of believing the same rubbish which we believe now that is used to divide us. No one will care about that little child that was run over or the family that mourns unless the child and family is theirs. And I know I’m part of the problem. I’m truly sorry but I find it very difficult to show compassion to those who live much better than me. I wasn’t a book worm as a kid, but I’m no criminal now. Should my family suffer for that now. I work. I’ve sacrificed but its mostly down to opportunities and who you know. I teach my kids right from wrong. My kids deserve to live in a suburb where you wake up each morning and don’t have to hear the reports of another shooting. Why don’t you go to Uni you say? And what not see my kids at all?

      Anyway good article.

    • Cloud Strife says:

      07:15am | 22/03/11

      The ‘little guy’, Ritchard was as see through as a pane of glass. “He started it!”

      Yeah, right, kid. Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.

    • Zeta says:

      07:30am | 22/03/11

      The moment you realise you’re really an anarchist is one of the most terrifying in a thinking person’s life - and I’m convinced that secretly, most thinking people are anarchists.

      The problem with the Left, is that they get within spitting distance of that intellectual plateau, and instead of throwing themselves off the edge they pull back with some ridiculous, constructed caveat. Like that Thoreau quote - ‘you will never be free unless the State does X’.

      That’s just plain wrong. There has never been a free and enlightened State. The State is anathema to freedom.

      The truth is, you will never be free unless you do something about it. The State will never make you free of its own volition. Governments are systems of control, and if you’re not under control, the system isn’t working, and if the system isn’t working, the Government ceases to exist in short order.

      Unlike the more tenuous structures of North Africa, South America and the Middle East, Australia’s system of Government is unasailable. Nothing you, your friends, or your entire city can do can dent its supremecy.

      The threshold for tyranny of any given society is in direct proportion to the level of comfort and wealth that tyranny renders to the most number of people. That’s why, on a long enough time frame, communist and socialist regimes last marginally longer than totalitarian ones. The people of Libya stopped seeing a net benefit to themselves and acted accordingly. But look at China - a more tyrannical regime than Gaddafi’s, yet the net utility of participation is higher. Chinese are getting richer every day - the margin for regime change widens.
      It feels good to imagine our Government is scared of us, but they’re not and have no reason to be. A quick glance at the CIA Fact Book reveals Libya has just 1 soldier / police officer to every 700 people. In Australia, we have an average 1 police officer to every 400 people, less if you imagine a scenario where the Defence Force and the Reserves are mobilised. We’re unarmed and have no where to go by virtue of geography.

      What would you do if the situation in Australia changed? In a year? In ten years? The same border security regime intercepting those incoming boats can make sure none get away as well. There is no where to run. No weapons to fight back with, no imbedded foreign journalists riding shotgun with us on the Nullabor on our way to liberate Perth. You couldn’t even enforce a no fly zone over Australia - no where to refuel.

      We are the ones who should be scared.

    • bella starkey says:

      07:59am | 22/03/11

      What should we do Zeta? Get guns? Build a bunker? Hide under the covers?

    • HappyCynic says:

      08:17am | 22/03/11

      So the short version of what you’re saying is we live in a benevolent tyranny, given the illusion of choice and kept fat and rich so we can’t complain smile

      Yeah sounds about right.

    • papachango says:

      09:01am | 22/03/11

      wow so you’re actually an anarcho-capitalist Zeta - I wouldn’t have pegged you thus. You can’t be a regular anarchist, most of whom are also left wing and want to ban both the state and private property. How they can enforece a ban on private property in the basence of a de jure or de facto state they fail to explain, and IMHO is a glaring hole in their ideology.

      Must take issue with ‘communist and socialist regimes last marginally longer than totalitarian ones’ - I see no difference between communist/socialist and totalitarian - they’re essentially one and the same thing.

    • mary says:

      09:25am | 22/03/11

      Indeed we are the ones who should be scared. Favorite of our government is the Goebbel’s technique. You tell em anything often enough and they start believing it.
      Who didn’t believe Rachel Nolan (Transport minister) scaremongering Queenslanders into having all their private info (including their mugshot) stored on a centralised data base to fight identity theft connected with driver licences? She told us that 87,000 Queenslanders had their identity stolen. A quick check (QPRIME database) reveals that actually it was 316 and very few of those connected with driver licences. That is 0.008%, and very few of those connected with driver licences.
      Lambs all of us, to the slaughter, chip and biometric now tracking us wherever we go, even in our own home. For our own safety.

      Spot on Zeta, we should be very scared.

    • mary says:

      09:54am | 22/03/11

      We are the ones who should be scared. Our government very successfully employs the Goebbel’s technique; tell em anything at all often enough and they’ll start to believe it.

      Who didn’t believe Transport Minister Rachel Nolan when we were scare mongered into having all our private details (including our mugshot) stored on a centralised data base because 87,000 Queenslanders had their identity stolen?

      A quick check from QRIME data base reveals that the true figure of identity theft is actually 316, a mere 0.008% and only a fraction of these involved driver licences.

      Lambs to the slaughter all of us, now our governments (with the chip and biometric image) for our own safety, can track us wherever we are, even within the ‘security’ of our own homes.

      Spot on Zeta, we should be very afraid.

      This is take 2.

    • Zeta says:

      10:14am | 22/03/11

      @ bella starkey - the question is, I think, ‘should you do anything?’ I don’t think I am an anarcho-capitalist @papachango, because I believe capitalism is just a side-effect of the same State that should not exist.

      The experience of humanity is a struggle for adequate shelter, food, and the conditions in which to breed. The State gives you that, and, in the State’s endless generosity, you get wealth, power, and as a sign of the State’s infinite compassion - it even gives you the illusion of the freedom you’d otherwise fight for.

      The problem of anarchy is then, why would you fight against that only to be tossed down into the dirt, scrapping about for food, fighting to survive? That’s the ultimate failing of the whole theory. You’re not free now, but is freedom an adequate enough reward to risk your own life? When the reality of ‘freedom’ as a it would be without the State is not especially appealing?

      @mary - What’s scarier is the alternative. At what point do you challenge the erosion of your liberty knowing the consequences? You might get microchipped, you might be recorded every waking second, and you might even get snatched off the street and imprisoned without trial - but in the meantime, you and everyone else have fat wallets and fatter bellys. Changing the State and challenging it’s power to do what you’ve described means taking that away. You can’t have your freedom cake and eat your high-def television too.

    • papachango says:

      10:36am | 22/03/11

      I have to call you on that one Zeta. Capitalism is merely the free and voluntary exchange of goods and services, and the accumulation of private property. It is what will happen naturally between individuals free from government coercion. If you really support anarchy and are capable of logical thought then you are an anarcho-capitalist. Anarcho-communists are simply deluded as you need a big powerful state to enforce collective ownership, despite Marx’s unachievable fantasy of a classless stateless society.

      I don’t quite share your beleif that anarchy = maximum freedom. You’d just have a de facto state from run by warlords, criminals or tribal chiefs (in fact most tin pot dictatorships are run this way). No system is perfect, but the best shot at maximiising individual liberty is to have a liberal democracy with a strong consitiution that severly limits and restricts government’s power. The US started out with this (Thomas Jefferson’s vision), though it has eroded over time and the state has grown.

      What you refer to as ’ a side-effect of the same State that should not exist’ is sometimes called ‘crony capitalism’ or even ‘‘facism’ if it’s taken to an extreme level, but it bears absolutely no resemblance to pure capitalism. It’s quite the opposite in fact.

    • mary says:

      10:55am | 22/03/11

      Not really into tv Zeta, not into lies either. What I go for is true liberty. You’re dreaming Zeta if you think that when the government takes at least 50% of your income (with various taxes and schemes) and then bit by bit hands you little morsels back of your own hard earned money, that this entails liberty. They got you in the palm of their hand me boy. You and all of those who buy into the lies.

    • HappyCynic says:

      11:26am | 22/03/11

      @papachango

      Nonsense, if you think pure capitalism isn’t also a control technique then you’ve swallowed some very powerful propoganda yourself.  The only difference is where the control is shifted to.

      It is not THE individual who benefits the most in a purely capitalist society it is AN individual (he who has the most money), afterall money equals power, power allows control and with control freedom is removed.

      Anarchy is the purest form of freedom.  The strong survive, the weak perish, this is true of all forms of government and society, but the weak can become strong in an anarchy, they can not in any other form of government.

    • LeonT says:

      11:35am | 22/03/11

      @papchango I take issue with the idea of a “free and voluntary exchange of goods and services”. People without accumulated property don’t have an option to participate in this exchange because if they don’t, they will starve. Such a situation amounts to enforced participation under the threat of violence and makes pure capitalism, in some way, intrinsically totalitarian.

    • papachango says:

      12:22pm | 22/03/11

      @Zeta - we’ll have to agree to disagree. Ignore the ‘c’ word for the moment as maybe your idea of capitalism is different from mine. What’s not free about individuals freely exchanging goods and services without goverment coercion?

      As for your assertion that ‘the weak can become strong in an anarchy’, that is just laughably wrong - I thought you were capable of better reasoning than that?

      @LeonT -  I said the voluntary exchange of goods and SERVICES. Those with no goods can sell their labor at an agreed price and make money thus accumulating their own property. Yes I know you’ll call that oppression, being a trotskyist and all, but it doesn’t make it any less of a fact. What are you doing on the Murdoch media anyway, surely thats bad for your blood pressure?

    • LeonT says:

      01:11pm | 22/03/11

      @papachango I understand the concept of selling your labour and accumulating assets; you say that they ‘can’ do this, I posit that they are forced to do this under duress. This does not constitute a “FREE and VOLUNTARY exchange of goods and services”.

    • papachango says:

      02:07pm | 22/03/11

      Everyone has to work for a living LeonT, even if it’s living in the jungle and hunter gathering. I suppose you can call it ‘duress’ that a hunter is forced to find food in order to not starve, but there is no system that just provides you with a living for which you don’t have to lift a finger in return.

      Under my system you can choose freely and voluntarily the manner in which you earn your living; under yours you get a living of sorts but must do exactly as the state directs. Now under which system is the individual more free?

    • mary says:

      03:17pm | 22/03/11

      Zeta, here I had you as a freedom fighter.. All of us are born free till the government comes and collects our details first so they can collect tax later on. Governments don’t ever give us anything we haven’t paid for ourselves. Nor can we expect them to. Governments’ sole purpose is to govern our common wealth (of Australia) and make sure that no one is left out.

    • LeonT says:

      03:29pm | 22/03/11

      Under pure capitalism, defined property rights prevent a hunter-gatherer from doing what you describe do unless they own the jungle, in which case they have property and thus have the option to exchange part of their jungle for the food they seek. Not everyone has to work for a living either; those with assets can sell them (or even lend them out) and live from the proceeds.

      You verballed me as a trot when that is hardly the case, one can read truth in Marx’s critique of capitalism without jumping to the same conclusions that he did. I made no claims to a perfect system, I just pointed out that the freedom one has under capitalism is proportional to their wealth and so anarch-capitalism is hardly an ideal society.

    • papachango says:

      04:28pm | 22/03/11

      You’ve extolled the vitues of Marx to a more symapthetic audience at Fairfax and go by the monker LeonT.

      Trotskyist is a fair assumption, n’est-ce pas? I’ll replace it with Marxist if you prefer

      Oh and I’m not an anarcho-capitalist. I support a limited government to uphold criminal law and protect property rights.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      09:48pm | 22/03/11

      The only logical doctrine is nihilism. We consume the past (petrochemicals, mineral resources, timber, soil quality) to satisfy present desires and needs at the expense of future generations.

    • Tubesteak says:

      07:44am | 22/03/11

      The main issue becomes “when does civil disobedience become lawless?”. Or “was it right when judged after the fact?”

      This is never easy. Casey was right to bodyslam that little Ritchard %^&$ because violence is the only language bullies understand. Show them they you’re not going to take it and they’ll pick on someone else. Waslk away and they’ll hit you in the back of the head. Tell the teacher and they’ll hit you later.

      It becomes a matter of public opinion. People rioting in detention centres aren’t going to get much sympathy among mainstream Australia…....

      Civil disobedience can work but sometimes it won’t. It all depends on what the majority of society think and the results.

    • joey says:

      08:15am | 22/03/11

      great article. i hope david penberthy reads it.

    • michael j says:

      08:21am | 22/03/11

      Well i for 1 would like to hear Tony Abbots opion on this matter of the school yard fight that has been viewed around the world,just what did he think about that right hook from the little bloke to someone 3 times his size,,,,,,,

    • Foxy Lady says:

      11:56am | 22/03/11

      Tony has to much residual brain damage from his own fights to comment on that right hook. He’ll just stutter and give you that “vacant” look.

    • Ryan says:

      08:45am | 22/03/11

      “To stage a protest now on Australian streets, people get permission from the very government they are protesting against, who then close the streets for them, organise a police escort for their safety, and so encapsulate them within the system. ”—not only that Tory, they the police have been caught on multiple occasions dressing in plain clothes milling in with the protesters (covered face of course) then starting trouble. Their mates then get the opportunity to react and start beating and tasering the otherwise peaceful protesters.

    • LC says:

      02:15pm | 22/03/11

      “the police have been caught on multiple occasions dressing in plain clothes milling in with the protesters (covered face of course) then starting trouble.”

      Umm, source please?

    • Frank says:

      09:11am | 22/03/11

      lol next thing you know the kid who shot the footage is gonna be on ACA claiming he was bulllied into it…the media are making this a circus, and this isnt going to solve anything…the Governments Bully Framework isnt going to stop the smart ass kid in the schoolyard who thinks that he’s a big shot, did anyone see this kid Ritchard’s Mother on the news? What was she doing? and why would she say that it was her son’s fault and then let him go on ACA? people need to take into account the parents of these kids…what are they doing? Bullying starts at home…and then enters the schoolyard..does the Government got a plan to deal with that?

    • fairsfair says:

      10:10am | 22/03/11

      I was bullied into watching it. I am currently waiting on a call back from Today Tonight.

    • stephen says:

      10:13am | 22/03/11

      The only freedom we need is to be able to choose to be good at something, and to be able to use that skill at our own leasure, and I think that if Casey had given the bully a good right-cross or two instead of a clumsy old slam-dunk, then the school-board would by now be offering self-defense classes instead of apologies.

    • Traxster says:

      10:43am | 22/03/11

      There’s a lesson here for all those would be bullies out there…......
      ‘Don’t pick on someone bigger than you ’ !!.

    • Comedian says:

      11:34am | 22/03/11

      The fact remains that a good old Chuck Norris roundhouse kick to the head will solve a lot of issues, as Casey proved. Granted it was a body slam but I’m if Casey could have got his leg that high he would have done it. Go Big Fella!!!

    • Cloud Strife says:

      11:49am | 22/03/11

      Did anyone else see the wonderful strip Penny Arcade did of Casey?

    • TimB says:

      12:33pm | 22/03/11

      I did!

      You know you’re pretty topical when you’ve managed to feature in what is normally a gaming related webcomic. I know Penny Arcade sell prints of some of their comics, they should do one of Casey’s and send it to him.

    • LC says:

      12:25pm | 22/03/11

      Watch the video of Richard’s interview on youtube. He’s ain’t getting much sympathy.

    • john says:

      12:33pm | 22/03/11

      though he defended himself, there was nothing civil in his disobedience.

    • Tim says:

      12:52pm | 22/03/11

      What do you mean? He did the body slam, then walked away. I would 100% agree with you if he went in for another punch or kick. But he just slammed him once and walked away, like a boss.

    • stephen says:

      06:28pm | 22/03/11

      No, he wasn’t a boss.
      He was still upset and intimidated, and it will happen to him again.
      That’s why he walked away as he did.
      There was no-one there to support him. No friends, but two girls, who were willing to cuddle up to the victor.
      Fat kids are not cuddlers, and they’d better get tough.

    • Carz says:

      12:52pm | 22/03/11

      I don’t condone bullying and I don’t condemn fighting back against bullies but I do have a lot of questions that need to be answered before I will come down on the side of Casey. My big question is if he had, over the years of bullying he experienced, tried working the system that the school has in place. All schools have anti-bullying procedures and policies but they are only any good if the staff AND the students use them. If kids get bullied and don’t tell anyone, or if they go home at the end of the day and tell their parents, then what is the school meant to do? The simple fact is that students vastly outnumber staff and the staff cannot be everywhere at once.

      If, and only if, the Casey has followed the school procedure, will you find me in his corner. The real main person I will cheer on from the video is the girl who came in at the end to stop another kid going after Casey. Perhaps if we all intervened when we see injustices occur bullies would lose their power.

    • Seano says:

      01:31pm | 22/03/11

      Exactly right. People have chosen to take a side based on a 30 second video wihout context. Both boys are claiming the other started, but really it doesn’t matter. They both did the wrong thing in using violence and they both deserved to be punished.

      There’s no winner or loser here, there’s no right and wrong. Adults cheering children beating each other because they’ve chosen a side in the argument are misguided at best, sick at worst.

      The real question is that is if Casey was indeed the victim on sustained systematic bullying which he claims he repeatedly reported why was nothing done?

    • Bugsy says:

      03:34pm | 22/03/11

      Doesn’t exactly work that way.
      I was bullied in year 8. When I finally cracked and went to tell the principal and other head staff (my teachers didn’t care) I was in BIGGER sht with my bully then what I was before I asked for the schools intervention.

    • Rick says:

      05:33pm | 22/03/11

      What Dream World do you live in? All schools have bullying policies but how many are implemented effectively? This is just one example of what hundreds maybe thousands of kids in Australia are facing each day of school. The chances are the first time or any time he talked to a teacher or counsellor he was fobbed off or worse they spoke to the bully and asked politely for it to stop. It is in very few schools and in very few cases that a program against bullying works.

    • Davido says:

      07:20pm | 22/03/11

      Sorry but you are in a DREAM WORLD!

      Are these the same policies and procedures that expelled the boy who acted in self defence but did nothing to discipline the bully?

      Dream on.

    • Seano says:

      08:21pm | 22/03/11

      @Davido - Both boys are claiming to have been bullied. Both boys have been disciplined for fighting. Both are children.

    • Davido says:

      10:30pm | 22/03/11

      What baloney!

      Do we have a good ole Jerry Springer case of the bully claiming to be the victim. “but jerry he made me punch him in the face..:

      You go up to someone, with the backing of several friends of course, hit them repeatedly and then claim to be the victim?

      There are always two sides to a story, but so many of us have seen bullying and experienced it to know who the real victim is here.

      Your naivety does not serve you well!

    • Seano says:

      08:04am | 23/03/11

      Choosing sides in a fight between children doesn’t serve you well either champ.

    • Davido says:

      01:16pm | 23/03/11

      Of course I am choosing sides. And if you had any moral backbone you would too.

      Get some perspective: this was not a fight between children.

      It was a criminal assault on a victim who defended - legally - himself.
      It was at least 3 individuals attacking, taunting and mocking a lone individual with his back against the wall.

      The school system which you so blindly endorse had the incredible audacity to punish the victim and thus reward and endorse the offending behaviour.

      If only the blind can see….

    • Seano says:

      03:28pm | 23/03/11

      It was a couple of light taps which could have been easily brushed off and walked away from followed by a response that had potential for serious injury.  Followed by a lot of he said she said.

      The only kid who did the right thing here was the girl who tried to intervene to prevent the thing from escalating further. Neither boy should have been hitting the other, no excuses, no justifications.

      What’s immoral is choosing a side in an argument between children, particularly when there’s wrong on both sides. Picking one child as a hero to be lauded and one child as villain to be castigated (and possibly worse) is what’s morally wrong. They are both children!

      “The school system which you so blindly endorse had the incredible audacity to punish the victim and thus reward and endorse the offending behaviour.”

      Firstly get your facts right before you make accusations champ.
      1.  Both boys were pushed because BOTH boys broke the school discipline policy.
      2.  Excusing one boy when both broke the rules because you’ve decided he was the victim is moronically stupid, what you’re saying to the children is the way to solve your problems is to punch on. Of course not every victim of bullying can do that. Not every victim of bullying is a big kid being picked on by a little one; it’s usually the other way around. So what’s the small kid to do? Punch on or be damned? You sir are a fool.
      3.  Actually what I said was that if either boy’s claims of reported systematic bullying are substantiated then something needs to be done to find out why nothing had been done before this.

    • Al says:

      01:09pm | 22/03/11

      Why are people SO fascinated about this incident?
      I know almost the identical thing occured when I was at scholl (the only difference being it was a kid in my own grade bullying).
      Verbaly taunted, and then physicaly hit me, at which stage I threw him over the railing to a 2metere fall onto concrete.
      When asked why I did it I told the teacher “he treatened and then hit me”. The teacher asked would I do the same if it was him who threatened and hit me…...for some reason he seemed surprised when I replyed immediately “off course, I won’t accept that crap from anyone and will defend myself.”

      This occured close to 20 years ago, and guess what, I wasn’t suspended for it as they decided it was ‘justified’.
      Only real difference, no one recorded it on their phone.

    • Schmavo says:

      01:18pm | 22/03/11

      I noticed in the original video that a school girl appeared to intervene and stop the fracas getting worse. There’s no mention of this in any media coverage and it looks like she prevented a third bloke from having a go at Casey. She is the one that should be consulted on how to handle bullying.

    • Schmavo says:

      04:51pm | 22/03/11

      My bad…...I don’t click on anything with the name “Peter Garrett” in the title. Good to know though.

    • Monkeys Trumpets says:

      03:26pm | 22/03/11

      I think this whole affair has been given more wind than it needed to. Bullying is an issue and it is so horrible to the kids being bullied. I know, I was there once. But why is everyone having a go at this Ritchard kid? He’s just a little kid! Yeah he was bad. And his Dad is probably worse by telling him what to say. But leave it alone. Enough. He’s just a kid too.

    • notSue says:

      04:07pm | 22/03/11

      Why do rules exist? Why is anarchy not the most common system of governance (or non- governance) on Earth if it is the only real freedom? Answer: Because, like it or not, rules provide order and stability, and promote the common good ahead of indivdual good. It’s fine to shout ’ Give me liberty or give me death!” as long as YOU are the only person dying! But that’s not how we live, we live in societies which need structure in order to function.

      Anarchy is my idea of hell, with rampant indivdualism and disorder not allowing anything meaningful to be accomplished by consessus and allowing the triumph of the meanest.. Capitalism has elements of it, true, and pure socialism/communism does not work en masse because it disallows indidual profit, so no, Zeta, I’m not frightened living in “benevolent tyranny”. I like the idea of predictability and stability.

      Howver, that’s not to say I dislike a tad of civil disobedience at times. rules that are just plain wrong or oppresive NEED to be disobeyed in order for our govenments to get the message. it’s all a question of remaining informed and thinking critically, so that we don’t let the bastards erode what freedoms we DO have. “Evil flourishes when goood men do nothing’ is even more apt today than it ever was. Casey’s plight is a perfect example, I agree Tori.

    • notsue says:

      04:21pm | 22/03/11

      and just adding another quote I like. ‘The price of freedom is eternal vigilance” - Thomas jefferson

    • papachango says:

      04:34pm | 22/03/11

      Agree about pure anarchy - doesn’t work all that well. Constitutionally Limited governments whose sole role is to stop people using violence against each other and protect private property rights is probably the best system that gives the most real freedom.

      Trouble is, even these limited governments have a habit of growing and getting out of control. Just look at tax as a % of GDP in most countries and by how much it has increased to pay for ever increasing rules and regulations, to the point where you have the ridiculous nanny states that we have today.

      Communism/socialsm took the shortcut to totalitariansim by violent revolution, but the so-called social democracy is just gradually getting there, one regulation at a time.

    • notSue says:

      09:10pm | 22/03/11

      I will agree that at times even I rail against excessive regulation and feel that our system of (over?) government is allowing us to become more and more a “nanny state”. It’s tough though, Where is the line drawn? Where do we say “this far and no further” to regulatory legislation? What are our alternatives ? Does anyone really care?,As Zeta says, perhaps we are all just too contentedly sucking on the teat of the State afterall?
      I know where I’d like to start - let me camp wherever I damn choose, as long as I respect the environment!  - (being facetious here).

      *siigh* feeling depressed now.

      Ta guys! ha!

    • DAvido says:

      07:27pm | 22/03/11

      Casey Haynes gets my vote for Young Australian of the Year !!

    • stephen says:

      12:02am | 23/03/11

      He keeps getting belted, he’ll be young for the rest of his life.

      Each act of violence takes time off your life, in that you need to re-live the time that it takes you to get over the trauma. You need to re-live it in your own mind, so that you necessarily become your own hero.
      Not bad, but it takes a while, and heroism, really, is relative.
      (It’s this ‘relative’, which can create, in the absence of normality, an Artist.)

    • St. Michael says:

      10:52pm | 22/03/11

      The greatest instrument of civil disobedience, in my view, remains the jury.

      Thanks to, ironically, John Stonehouse, a British MP who fled to Australia, a judge cannot force a jury to find someone guilty no matter how overwhelming the evidence, and cannot ask for the reasons behind a jury’s decision.  The jury remains invisible and unknowable.

      This is a beautiful thing.  This is something you people should be protecting anytime some right wing (or left wing) fool comes out and demands that juries give reasons or that a verdict of ‘not guilty’ can be overturned.  For this reason and this reason alone, the State cannot reliably use criminal trials as tools of political oppression—because it can’t control the jury (yet) and there is always a sympathy acquittal available for politically motivated charges.  For a recent example, keep an eye on how hard the State fights to keep Julian Assange and/or Bradley Manning away from a jury of twelve ordinary people.  They know Stonehouse, they hate juries, and they won’t risk either put before them on *political* charges.

      Read Geoffrey Robertson’s “The Justice Game” for further examples of this.  But as one British columnist said: “Whenever judges and politicians join together, mounting their horses to rush towards some sort of convenient despotism, that shadowy band of figures, neither terribly good nor true, rise from the bushes to fling a gate across the path.  History knows them as the Gang of Twelve.”

    • notSue says:

      10:24am | 23/03/11

      Thankyou St.Michael, I’ll definitely get hold of Geoffrey’s book. I agree, it does certainly seem to be a beautiful (and encouraging!) thing, which needs protecting.

    • chucky says:

      11:42am | 23/03/11

      Angry that A Current Affair had the interview with Casey Heynes, not them - Today Tonight sunk to new levels of depravity by attempting to deliberately discredit Casey Heynes’ sincerity in their farcical “interview with the bully”! The producers of Today Tonight should be ASHAMED of themselves for running such divisive tripe - purely for a cheap ratings grab!

      They’re not the only guilty party, though - as this “interview” provided a golden opportunity for Ritchard Gale and his equally dubious Father to shed some crocodile tears for the camera, in a thinly veiled attempt to take some heat off themselves by shamelessly passing the buck.

      You didn’t have to be a “Lie To Me” style body language expert to recognise this “interview” for the charade that it was. Quite simply, even a blind, mute person could see that Ritchard Gale was blatantly LYING every time he opened his crooked little mouth! The most pathetic part in all of it was that his equally despicable Father was encouraginging him to do it - even coaching him on what to say! It’s obvious this evil little creep has NO remorse whatsoever, and all his Father evidently cares about is avoiding looking like the BAD PARENT he so clearly is!

      However the real “bad guys” are Today Tonight for allowing this travesty to air in the first place. And now the newspapers are waving this kid’s “apology letter” in front of anyone who’s gullible enough to buy into this farce? Come on, really???

    • curious says:

      12:19pm | 23/03/11

      wondering if the big kid, Casey, would have gotten the same show of support nationwide if he were say Islander or Asian… just saying is all…

    • Rip says:

      09:11am | 06/06/11

      Oh yes, of course. Shoving women and children out of the way, so you can get out of a collapsing building during an earthquake, is similar to standing up to the british occupation and subjugation of India.

      Wade is such a hero.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

RT @GrogsGamut: QUESTION: But in terms of that discussion though, is he misquoting you with that?TONY ABBOTT: You’ve had your say. http://t…

tory_maguire

LOL ... @pollietrackerhttp://t.co/Q8xviQJ7f6

Anthony Sharwood

Of all the stupid stories I've written, and there have been plenty, this is definitely in the top 10 http://t.co/otUKnjq2C3

Malcolm Farr

NSW Nationals and independent Tony Windsor among many saddened by the passing of former state MP Gerry Peacocke. A great character.

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter