javasaurus (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
javasaurus) wrote2005-08-03 09:39 am
javasaurus) wrote2005-08-03 09:39 am
Assault with deadly weapon: Girl hits boy with rock.
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
Here's the article from WTOPnews.com
no subject
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.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2005-08-03 03:11 pm (UTC)(link)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.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
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
no subject
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).