After reading the facts, I like the decision.
You are under no legal obligation to take a beating.
The kid was younger (freshman v. junior - BIG age difference).
He attempted to avoid the fight (got off several stops earlier).
He was struck in the back of the head (he has no legal obligation to be struck AT ALL).
He still tried to get away (no legal obligation to do so and he therefore did "retreat" but was not required to do so under the law).
It's truly tragic a young man who could not have foreseen this result (both of them actually) and does not have the maturity to make good decisions lost his life over this. No one wins here. It's a tragedy.
However, the deceased's family said:
?We know this wasn?t the right decision,? said Dylan?s aunt, Adriana Nuno.?(The judge) is showing those kids it?s OK to get away with murder.?
And in reply, I say...
The judge is showing those kids its not okay to assault someone. The judge is showing those kids that deadly consequences can result. And what that family is missing (of course) is that those two boys could have easily traded places that day and the other kid could have died from a blow to the head.
A mutual fight is one thing. Those happen and it's part of growing up a boy. But by no means do you have to suffer an attack and potential injury if you're not a willing participant.
The judge absolutely got this (difficult) decision right. There is really no debate.