Assault with deadly weapon: Girl hits boy with rock.

[javasaurus]

An eleven-year-old girl hit a boy in the head with a two-pound rock. She is being charged with felony assault with a deadly weapon. Thoughts?

Here's the article from WTOPnews.com

Comments

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

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?

[faireraven.livejournal.com]

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.

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

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.