I see this from the perspective of someone who has worked in schools pretty much his entire adult life.
Jim should have targeted the school and even reported them to the police if they aren't doing enough to protect his daughter.
If I had a student with a parent who threatened other parents I'd have to make plans with my principal and colleagues if they show up to school.
Ultimately this is a school issue and should be handled by the school.
If the school doesn't do it's job then legal recourse is available.
It might not be, either because he doesn't have the cash to get proper representation or else he isn't familiar enough with the legal system to know that he can sue the school for not handling a student or perhaps doesn't simply doesn't trust the legal system to do it's job any more than the school system. Legal recourse is just far more complicated than simply showing up at the other parents doors. That said, I will also concede to your point in that he had another recourse, in theory, available to him and also that is another way in which the confrontation could have gone bad.
But again, if I concede that is the proper course of action, it's because of it's practical applications. The posters I'm replying to aren't offering anything like that, just bland moralizing over a situation where the father has every right to be outraged without offering real solutions like you are. That is simply disgusting to me.
I agree with
Jokab, though, to a degree. There were no overt consequences, but there could have been the potential for a more positive ending. I mean, suppose the parents had no idea their child was a bully. Jim brings the situation to their attention and they immediately crack down on the bully's behavior. Now, you have a more powerful ally helping you to achieve your desired result--no more bullying. Good parents trying to teach their children to turn their lives around and applying positive pressure. The child changes his ways, Jim's daughter is safe and hopefully both children learn something from it.
If it were me, and I had a parent come to my house and threaten me because my child was bullying another to the point of leaving injuries, ESPECIALLY if it was for a reason like non-conforming to gender rules, I would speak politely to the outraged parent, let them know I clearly did not know what was going on, and promise to have a long talk with my child. And then I'd go and have that talk with my child.
I wouldn't even be offended at being threatened over this because I'd have the empathy to know exactly the kind of feelings that father was going through. So, in my view, nothing that Jim did would preclude what your describing from happening. Atleast with me.
Without knowing more about the bully and his home environment, you can't really speculate past that. We can assume the parents are good and hope that one discussion is all that it takes. They could just as easily threaten their own child to stop, forcing the bully to find a new target. That's great for Jim and his daughter, but not great for the new target and his/her family. The threat of physical violence / fear is a powerful one, and it worked here, but it is rarely a positive one. I agree, the most important goal was achieved and that the victim should absolutely be prioritized over the bully (who may be a victim himself, whether it be by his parents or something else), but that doesn't mean I can't wish the situation was handled differently. You can say, "the ends justify the means" here, but they just as easily could have made the situation worse. I believe in self-defense (especially when the instutions sworn to do so fail) and I'm glad the daughter knows her father will protect her, but there are too many gun-happy, twisted individuals out there for me to advocate violence without considering the alternatives first.
This could all be a moot point. Maybe Jim went over to talk to the parents and they told him to Fack Off. I don't know. I do think I understand where Jim was coming from and there is definitely a thin line in terms of, "Well, let's just wait for those parents to get their child under control while he terrorizes my daughter." It's like, hasn't she been through enough already? Do you really want to ask her to "hang in there" while they get their crap together? Probably not. I know I wouldn't.
Guns are not what I think of when I think of situations like this. The guy wasn't threatening to kill anyone, just wreck their shit, near as I can tell. Like you said, that could have escalated to greater violence pretty fast, and
that's most definitely a concern....but also like you said, the alternative is to let things continue to be in hopes that they'll get better.
Lets say this then: there are more efficient ways that Jim could have handled this. Practical ways in which he could have better protected himself because he took a risky route where he could have gotten in trouble.
But the parents of the bully, even if they are well intentioned, should feel bad, because they failed to teach their child to be a good person. And we keep supposing that they are these well intentioned, good parents that just somehow ended up with a shitty son, but a lot of the time, people are just banally shitty. Not evil, not intentionally malicious, but not willing to work up the muscle to be actually good. That;'s what I imagine the bully kids parents to be like, especially if we're supposing that them telling him to stop it is just gonna result in him finding a new target.
When you get down to it, I have to say I kinda do believe ends justify means in this case because the ends are genuinely good, and the criticism of the means tend to lean on them being risky rather than them being wrong. The school system failed Jim's daughter and he protected her in a way he thought was best. Maybe it wasn't best, but he protected her. And if it had gone wrong and Bully kid's parents were gun totting maniacs or that he got in legal trouble, then yes, that wouldn't have been good, but I'd still see the fault largely in the school system and the bully parents long before I saw it in Jim.