javasaurus | Assault with deadly weapon: Girl hits boy with rock.

the problem with charging as a juvinile is that for the "protection" of the child, it all becomes hidden. as such, it serves no purpose as any sort of deterent or demonstration that such a crime will really be punished. only when charged as an adult does the rest of the community (and more importantly, the rest of the kids of the community *and their respective parents*) know that any such thing has happened. its not just "some kid", but its a kid with a name, with a family, with a potential perhaps now destroyed.

*maybe* it might be the thing to wake parents up and get them to actually be parents again...

sorry 'bout the crappy spelling -- i meant to run that through a checker first...

Supposedly the prosecution is making sure it will be a public issue. Though charged as a juvenile, the trial will be public, and the prosecution is not accepting a plea or admission of guilt to avoid a public trial.

i think you're missing my point on junenile trials -- even though the trial is fully public, the media (either by law or by tradition) never "names names" of any juvie charged or convicted. only when they are tried as an adult, and/or are an adult at the time of arrest (like the DC area sniper kid) will they be named...and putting a name to a crime increases its impact greatly.

Ah, I see your point. But it doesn't apply here. Her name is in the second paragraph of the article. Maribel Cuevas.

I read it as the defense not accepting any plea bargain that involves her admitting guilt. Bennett is the defense attorney.B

Oops! My mistake. That makes much more sense. (I originally mis-read it as the prosecution not accepting a guilty plea, I presumed for the sake of increasing public awareness.)

the above anon. was me -- didn't realize I wasn't logged in!

More specific info:

From the article:
FRESNO, Calif. (AP) - Advocates for an 11-year-old girl who was arrested on a deadly weapon charge for throwing a 2-pound rock during a water balloon fight say the charge in no way fits the crime.

From a Free Maribel! web site:
Fresno, CA: On April 29th, Maribel was playing on the sidewalk with her 6-year-old brother and other younger children, when boys rode by on their bikes. They started teasing her, calling her names and hitting her with water balloons. TTThe 11-year-old girl threw a rock to defend herself as neighborhood boys pelted her, hitting one hard enough to make him bleed. The boy admitted to officers that he started the fight and was quickly released from the hospital after getting his head stitched up. The boy's family stated they did not want to press charges.

This brings two issues to my mind: First, the degree to which HOW a news item is reported can sway the reader; and second, the question of how far do we expect a reasonable child to go to protect themself from bullies?

I know that when my brother was a kid and getting beaten up by a bunch of bullies, he picked up a nearby 2x4 (the school was having some construction done), and by the time he was done, the bullies had far more damage done to them than he did.

And the school tried to press charges on my brother.

My parents came back at them saying that if they did a better job at watching their charges, he wouldn't have had to defend himself to begin with. My brother wasn't known to be a violent child to begin with, just hyperactive, and he defended himself with the same fervor. They flat out told the school if they brought up charges on my brother they'd be facing a hefty lawsuit in return for not having stopped the bullies from beating up on him to begin with (they're both teachers, they know how much supervision the kids are supposed to have at that age, and there sure as hell wasn't enough, or the other kids wouldn't have been able to beat on him to begin with). The school immediately stopped threatening to press charges.

The question is, what level of assault qualifies to return fire, and to what level? Technically, the water balloons qualify as assault. The question is, how much did the little girl feel that her safety was being threatened? If the girl is being charged with assault with a deadly weapon, the little boy at the very least needs to be charged with assault. A child of that age will do what they can to stop the perceived threat, and she was being threatened. To her mind, the rock was the fastest way to cease the balloon assault.

She may not have been right in throwing the rock back... but she was defending herself against a perceived threat. She may have thought they would get worse. They may have done things to her before. And if she was fighting the cops, she may have seen them "on their side" not "hers".

I don't see her as deserving a "felony assault" charge. At the most, assault, but nothing deserving a felony assault charge... Because to my mind, felony assault is premeditated.

If a woman feels her life or her virtue is threatened, she is found innocent of any assault charges in return because it is self defense. To an 11 year old mind, I don't see this as being that much different.

If the boy's parents aren't pressing charges, I don't see why the state sees the need to press them.

The case brings up interesting points of law, at least. For example...

"If a woman feels her life or her virtue is threatened"

I suspect it's more like "if a reasonable woman would feel her life (or her virtue) were threatened." I know that in many cases, laws are based on how a reasonable person would act. Whatever that means.

Also, there is no indication that she felt her life or virtue to be in danger.

As for the prosecution despite the "victim" not pressing charges: it's not necessary for a victim to bring charges in a case of felony violence. This is important for domestic violence cases, where the victim may even deny the assault.

It is not disputed that she hit the boy with a rock. The particular rock is in question, whether the boys attacked her with rocks first is also in question (see this chain of article for lots of disputed details).

But a rock of significant size, used in attack, is a lethal weapon, even if the attacker doesn't use it to kill, even if the attacker doesn't know that it can kill. If Person A intentionally shoots Person B in the leg with a gun, that is assault with a deadly weapon. Depending on the actual rock used, she did engage in assault with a deadly weapon. The question is whether it was first degree, second degree, etc., or self defence.

I think both kids should be punished. I think the other boys involved in the ride-by should also be punished.

The original TOP article implies that there was a consensual water balloon fight going on and she added a rock. The other bit you quoted in a comment says that she was playing with some younger kids and the boys rode by on bikes, started teasing her and pelting her. That gives an entirely different slant to the matter.

I also think that calling a 2lb rock a 'lethal weapon' is going a bit far. As LongLostLars mentioned, rings could be considered weapons using that sort of logic. Does that mean that I should check my rings if we fly anywhere? What about my keys? They could be weapons (and have been in the past) although I doubt they are lethel. What about a pair of steel toed boots? Or a roll of masking tape (you could tie someone up and suffocate them with enough tape I suspect)? Or????

I think this is ZeroTolerance stupidity.

The difference being that she clearly used the rock as a weapon.

As for zero tolerance, what would your feelings be if she pulled out a gun? One thing we don't know is whether these kids regularly teased Maribel, and she snapped, or if she had a predisposition to violence. We don't know the extent of the teasing, or the water balloons. There is too much in this case that we don't know. I don't think we can claim "zero tolerance" at this point.

Add to all this that she resisted arrest and scratched a police officer. But we don't know what actions on the part of the police led up to her resistance.

Another anon of mine! what's wrong with my silly browser today?!?

You didn't click the 'log in?' box when you commented?

I made the mistake of responding directly to my e-mail notification of message. Doesn't prompt for log-in. (I thought I was already logged in anyway!)

According to the second story; the boy had a habit of teasing her.

Also, they read her Miranda Rights in English (which she has some troubles with and probably more when she is stressed).

If you accept that while she does know some English, she thinks in Spanish; having the cops restrain her, cuff her, and put her on the ground would probably drive all the English out of her brain (heck, with some people for whom English is their native tongue it does the same thing). If someone came up behind a person and grabbed them, the normal reaction is to fight.

Supposedly the rock that the cops are showing is NOT the 'weapon' according to BOTH kids.

I didn't say that she shouldn't be punished. I said that calling it a felony and assault with a lethal weapon was wrong and went under the ZT label. If she had pulled a gun; things would be different. 11 is old enough to know that guns are lethal. However, for me, there are some differences between an 11 year old pulling a gun and an 20 year old pulling a gun BOTH of which are MUCH more serious than a 5 year old pulling a gun (not that that wouldn't scare the bejeebers out of me anyway).

Regarding Bennett the WTOP article says that she is the defense attorney the other URL says that someone else is the girl's attorney so I don't know what to think about that.

I firmly believe that she should be punished. I also believe that if the boy did water bomb her and tease her; he should be punished. I fully believe that *IF* he threw the rock first; he should receive at least as harsh a punishment as she does (though proving that will be virtually impossible).t

For those following along with the home version, "second story" in the above post refers to This chain of articles, linked to by the Free Maribel! site that I've mentioned elsewhere.

The article has the initial AP release, the police department rebuttal to the article, and a response to the police rebuttal, etc.

Bennett is an assistent to the defence attorne (according to the WTOP article).

I see this as being just one more bit of evidence that somethin's gotta give somewhere. People say this wouldn't happen if parents parented better. Parents might be able to parent better if the cost of supporting the life they want for their children weren't so expensive as to require both parents to work outside the home. The cost of living to support that life wouldn't be so high if people would just freakin' relax and not get so caught up in the competitivenes and acquisitiveness that seems to have been adopted by our culture.

Don't have any answers on how to make it better, just my observations.

Apparently this occurred in a poverty stricken, gang and drugs filled violent neighborhood where English is a second language, if known at all.

I'm not sure if that changes, or reinforces your response, but it's not a neighborhood where Nintendo and Reeboks rule kids' minds.

No, actually it does reinforce it. I wasn't just speaking to the demographic where having to show up at school in last season's clothes is the kiss of death. It's getting pretty hard to make any kind of a decent living--it's not the luxuries you need to work triple-overtime for, but the basics--food & shelter. In the areas where this particular incident occured, where folks are rolling pennies just to buy macaroni & cheese things get a little more desperate.

Um, I probably missed this somewhere, but, since when does stuff like this get the police called in? What happened to parents talking to their kids and to the other parents about what is and isn't ok behavior and thinking before you do something and learning how to develop some judgement, etc.? Does somebody seriously think putting an eleven year old in jail is going to benefit the child or society? And if this kid is being raised in an environment where violence is the norm, how is prison going to counter the influence that's already clearly had on her? As for resisting the police, she's eleven, she's scared and or angry, they're strangers and should have had her parents present (again, might have missed some of the details) and are probably not regarded as the good guys in this neighborhood. Please tell me that Mirandizing an eleven year old, regardless of language, is not seriously going to hold up in court if grown adults can get away with claiming not to have understood their rights. Besides, does being charged with a felony automatically make you an emancipated minor? If not, she can't legally be read her rights without her parents present, anyway. Don't they have to meet some kind of probable cause standard to imprison someone? Couldn't the police have just taken the kids home and spoken to both of their parents? I think I'll just stop now...

The police probably responded to the 911 call for an ambulance. Supposedly, the message they got was that a 13 year old was bashing a 6 year old with a rock, they assumed gang violence, and responded accordingly. As for probable cause, they had a rock, a bleeding boy, lots of witnesses, etc.

What happened to parents talking to their kids and to the other parents about what is and isn't ok behavior and thinking before you do something and learning how to develop some judgement, etc.?

Been asking that for years...

Assault with deadly weapon: Girl hits boy with rock.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Other people's children...

Re: Other people's children...

Re: Other people's children...

no subject

no subject