Self-defense or felony?

I've noticed...

in both posted articles they won't mention how many other boys there were (or if they did I missed it), their ages, their sizes, what exactly they were saying to her, and what other things they were doing.

Would it make any difference to the "she deserves to be arrested" crowd if the boys had been saying things like "next time we come by we're going to pound you" or "this is just the start of what we're going to do to you", or any of the various racial oriented putdowns?

I'd be sorely tempted to test the boys' parents' tolerance for having someone throw water ballons at them.

Again, disparity of force.

migoi

Based on the limited information from the articles, I pretty much feel that the authorities over-reacted.

I take that view in large part because of the disparity of numbers, and particularly because the individual was on her own property and minding her own business.

When a group starts trouble with an individual, and the individual is on his own property and minding his own business, IMO the individual can write the Rules Of Engagement.

If there indeed is "more to it than what was written in the article" I could view it differently...

Art

The point that seems to get lost or misunderstood is that children are human beings, not pets, not lesser creatures, no matter how the law and society treat them, they are *human beings*, just small and lacking in experience - however that makes them no less entitled to defend themselves than we are.

Click to expand...

Wow.

Just wow.

Ain't a lot of folks understand this.

pax

If I had to make a general rule for living and working with children, it might be this: be wary of saying or doing anything to a child that you would not do to another adult, whose good opinion and affection you valued. -- John Holt

The worst part of this story is the reaction here. On a board where this should be an open/shut issue we have several people trying to claim the girl did something wrong.

Multiple attackers, male, against one girl. That's it. That's all the story we need. She threw a rock, size matters not(channeling Yoda there) and the assault ended. That's self defense. That's how it's supposed to work. Period. She did right. At most the cops might have been in the right to chew out all involved, anything more was a complete over reactions. If she kicked and screamed at the officer's abuse(and abuse it was), tough.

And yet here, in a place where she should be defended, we have people claiming she did something wrong and trying to justify the police actions while ignoring the assault and disparity of force. That's even more depressing than the event itself.

I don't have any children. If I did; my eleven year old daughter would know exactly what to do with a baseball bat as a weapon. She wouldn't be throwing it.

I'd have this advice for other parents: If your kids don't attack my kids; then my kids will not inflict serious injury on them in self defense. If your kids do attack my kids; then my kids have been trained in what to do and they have my blessing.

On the other hand, if God is good to me, then I will never have a need to go to California that is important enough that it cannot be blithely ignored.

One of my employees once complained that my advice to her son on dealing with bullies would have him barred from the bus service and probably expelled from school. My reply was would you rather have to drive him yourself or home school him or have him beaten regularly by bullies?

Judging from her course of inaction; she preferred him getting beaten by bullies. Which they did...regularly...for years. But there is a God. The tiny, timid young boy grew into a giant of a young man. Six and a half feet tall at 16 and about an axe handle across at the shoulders. There was wailing and gnashing of teeth in the local bully population for he paid them back with interest accrued.

While California is the land of fruits and nuts, we are CERTAINLY not alone in this kind of lunacy. Give it a rest.

To throw another point into the mixing pot, the first article says that she was playing with her three younger siblings when all of this went down.

Wasn't she protecting them in the process?

Personally, I feel the PD was way out of line, and if anything, the group of young boys should have had actions taken against them. At least have it explained to them that your actions may cause a response that you don't like.

In this case, you got hit with a rock. Yes it hurts, but maybe you'll learn for next time...

Bwahahaha, nice shot Byron... "wailing and gnashing of teeth".. *snicker*.

One of my employees once complained that my advice to her son on dealing with bullies would have him barred from the bus service and probably expelled from school.

Click to expand...

No probably about it - I was expelled from so MANY schools that by the time I was sixteen I simply took the GED and had done with it, not only was I frustrated with having to go toe-to-toe with the local head punk and cronies each time I entered a new pecking order, I got kind of sick to my stomach having so much blood on my hands, both metaphorically and for real.

I packed a blade, and when you are literally HALF the size of most of these goons and not bruce lee, well, what ARE your options ?

Having that blade means you get to walk away, instead of being carried on a stretcher.. it doesn't mean you win, it doesn't necessarily mean you don't get the crap beaten out of you, it insures that in order to hospitalize you they have to risk being hospitalized BY you, and I won't even go into detail about how sick and stupid it is to make children wholly dependant on adults for protection till they're eighteen, and then repeatedly put them in places and situations where no adult can or will protect them, or is even present.

To hell with school policy, my life was more important than the so-called education they were handing out, and I learned more on my own anyhow.

You bet I know a lot about this kind of issue, I've been dealing with it on one level or another for over two decades, and started dealing with it from a pretty durn frontline perspective.

Children should have the right to responsible self-defense, and they don't, and it offends me - it did 20 years ago when it was me, it does now when watching something like this.

-K

Quote: The point that seems to get lost or misunderstood is that children are human beings, not pets, not lesser creatures, no matter how the law and society treat them, they are *human beings*, just small and lacking in experience - however that makes them no less entitled to defend themselves than we are.


Okay folks, I don't want to hijack the thread (or at least not for long), but this issue has been brought up with me in court back when I worked Juvenile, and I still don't know the answer. So, here goes:

A child has a right to self-defense. I think we can agree that, in geeneral, this is true. At the same time, I think we can also agree that a parent has a right to discipline a child, up to andd including reasonable corporal punishment.

So, here's where it gets to be fun. Parent goes to discipline a child, by grounding, sending to room, whatever. Child mouths off and refuses the punishment. Parent escalates to a corporal punishment, with a slap in the face, grabbing the child, etc. Child punches parent. Somehow, police intervene.

Now, which one is right here? The parent, claiming the right to discipline, and charging the child with Assault/Domestic Violence? Or the child, claiming fear of abuse, and right to defend self by using non-deadly force against non-deadly force?

Obviously, there are situations where a parent goes too far, and a child has ever right to protect him or herself. At the same time, I've seen a slap inthe face by a mother turn into a split lip and loose tooth when the child punched back "in self-defense." I saw this raised several times, and saw the anti-child abuse people supporting the child.

So where do we draw the line?

Use enough rock!

Mouse Rocks.

CAS, that's a topic for APS, not THR. But lemme point out that a slap in the face in anger isn't discipline. It's abuse. A swat on the behind, with the parent's temper firmly under control and with due explanation given to the child, is discipline.

[/hijack]

pax

Perhaps a well-written letter to the editor from a different slant, draw in the feminists to argue against the non-violentists.

Harassment of women and girls is about power and domination and yet when this girl's "no" was ignored and she defended herself against repeated attacks by a group of male oppressors the male power structure sided with the boys to ensure that she and other girls learned a lesson about their "place" in society.

CareBear ~

That's brilliant, and might even work.

pax

Bravo!

[offtopic]An 11-year old girl who "speaks limited English..." ***??[/offtopic]

Self-defense, pure and simple.

First, I'm sorry for the off-topic earlier post. Just a thought that came to mind on the self-defense issue.

But, having just re-read the thread, am I to understand that many of the people here believe that water balloons thrown by 9 year old children is a violent attack? And, that in these circumstances, this girl was justified in using deadly force to counter this attack?

I'm sorry. Well, actually I'm not sorry. Water balloons are not deadly weapons. They are a child's game. Who among us hasn't enjoyed ambusing a friend with a water balloon as a child. I posted a different thread talking about how I was the "victim" of such an ambush at my son's birthday party.

So, let's say the girl didn't like it. She hated it. She wanted it to stop. Fine. The boys should have stopped. They didn't. Does this continued barrage of water balloons put her at imminent risk of serious physical harm or death? Not unless they were frozen. So, she is not justified legally in using deadly force. Period.

Did she use deadly force? A two pound rock thrown could cause serious physical harm or death. I don't know California law, but here in Ohio it would qualify as a deadly weapon. Did she cause physical harm with a deadly weapon? yes. In Ohio, that makes her guilty of Felonious Assault. The only question is whether her actions were justifiable as being self-defense. And I don't believe they were.

Think of it this way. She's being pelted with water balloons. She reaches into her backpack, pulls out a Glock 9mm, and shoots the boy in the leg. Still think this is justified? It is legally the same as throwing the rock.

You know, for as much as we spend time around here talking about justified use of force, I am simply amazed at the number of postings which see her using deadly force in response to water balloons and taunts as appropriate.


All that off my chest, let me say this. Eleven years old, in my opinion, is too young to prosecute someone for Felonious Assault, because I do not believe that an eleven year old has the requisite mental maturity to appreciate the seriousness of their actions, thus creating a situation where they may not be able to form the requisite mens rea to commit the offense. Most states have laws on the books which hold that children ten and under are not capable of forming the necessary mental state to commit a crime or an intentional tort. Sounds like a possible defense in this situation.

Chris - one thing I would add - this case like so many we read about has an element in it of ''we were not there''. However much disparity we see in rock vs water ballons, the one thing I am wondering is just how high might a perceived threat have been - had we been witnesses. Water balloons are fun/nuisance when it somes to an assault, but throw in speech type, body language, weight of numbers etc - and just possibly this child was actually fearful for her safety - perhaps thinking or feeling escalation was coming. Who knows.

I am not at this point specifically damning or condoning - just wishing I had the benefit of witnessing, then I could make a solid judgement. Fear does things to folks - of all ages.

Water balloon with bleach water? Paint? Urine? Where does that shifty line of "okay to respond" fall?

I would call the parallel to the reasonable perception of the victim. She doesn't know what's in them, only that the attackers won't stop and she is (probably) being hurt (she's a little girl). A rock COULD be a deadly weapon but is not designed to be one, it is a weapon of opportunity. A lot of things can be weapons and so we look at the intent of what they are used for (offense or defense). After all, depending on the user's intent, a water balloon or a bat or a punch or a pellet gun can all be "weapons".

At what point do we say "enough" to an assault and respond with parallel or slightly greater force? It's the victim's perspective, not the attackers or ours that should be given the most weight.

Inconceivable.

Perhaps a well-written letter to the editor from a different slant, draw in the feminists to argue against the non-violentists.

Click to expand...

Actually I had already done so, and was actually discussing the situation with Rev, before this issue was even posted here.
They've yet to print it, and I doubt they will, but it was worth a try.

Think of it this way. She's being pelted with water balloons. She reaches into her backpack, pulls out a Glock 9mm, and shoots the boy in the leg. Still think this is justified?

Click to expand...

Yes, and my comment then would be that she would have went for the headshot.

Multiple assailants approach her, assault her, and refuse to stop and/or leave - she is outnumbered, on her own property, and has at least one younger sibling with her.
Again, repeat after me folks, maybe it will sink in.

What she did was STOP the attack before it escalated into harm to HER.

Repeat it three times, please.

What part of that is not getting through here - if someone didn't stop it, it very likely would have escalated, I defy anyone to even try to tell me with a straight face that it would not have.
She stopped it, good for her!

You know, for as much as we spend time around here talking about justified use of force, I am simply amazed at the number of postings which see her using deadly force in response to water balloons and taunts as appropriate.

Click to expand...

But how do you KNOW it was not gonna escalate, hmm ?
"Just hand over your keys and your wallet, your property isn't worth your life..."
Same basic logic, again - you can NOT set a double standard here and still hold moral high ground.

I am not being deliberately bloodthirsty, I am pointing out that people keep setting a different standard for this kid as if she's some kind of less-than-human or less-than-person because she's a kid.

She defended herself and this nightmare for her is what happened in response - my deepest concern is what will happen when these punks come back, cause they will, and laugh in her face and taunt her because SHE got in trouble for defending herself against them.

You wanna know what causes kids to aquire guns and kill other kids, you have it right there, in a nutshell - if this situation isn't sorted, and they come back, she's very likely to try to kill them.
(Not sure I blame her, either..)

That's something I would rather NOT happen, and therefore I am going to be extremely harsh on this one, sorry if it bothers some folk, but the end results of this are unlikely to be very nice.

-K

What bothers me about this entire situation. Fresno is a LARGELY Hispanic town. A good number of the veggies and fruit that is consumed in this country are grown there and most of the workers in the fields are of Hispanic heritage, so why doesn't the Fresno PD have AT LEAST 1 Bi-Lingual person on each shift???? This entire situation could/ may have been resolved in the field of the communication was there. I mean here in Texas most of us speak at least some Spanish, maybe not fluent but we somehow get by.

Judging from her course of inaction; she preferred him getting beaten by bullies. Which they did...regularly...for years. But there is a God. The tiny, timid young boy grew into a giant of a young man. Six and a half feet tall at 16 and about an axe handle across at the shoulders. There was wailing and gnashing of teeth in the local bully population for he paid them back with interest accrued.

Click to expand...

Not quite instant, but kharma nonetheless. Ya gotta love it.

Yes, indeed there is a God. And on occasion He displays a wicked sense of humour.

But, having just re-read the thread, am I to understand that many of the people here believe that water balloons thrown by 9 year old children is a violent attack? And, that in these circumstances, this girl was justified in using deadly force to counter this attack?

Click to expand...

??????

For God's sake, man, we're talking about a 9-year old girl here. A CHILD! When you were 9 years old, did you understand (or had you even heard of) the concept of "deadly force"? She obviously didn't understand it. The cop wrote in his report that she said she knew the rock might make the kid bleed. That doesn't equate to knowing it might kill him. To me it demonstrates quite the opposite.

And I'm astonished at anyone who believes that a 2-pound rock (or even a 3-pound rock) is large. A "boulder" (to quote the chief of police)? Gimme a break. We don't know what kind of stone was in this rock, but I'll use granite as an example, recognizing that some types of stone weigh a bit less and some weight a bit more. Granite weighs 168 pounds per cubic foot, or 0.097 pounds per cubic inch. So ... a 2-pound rock would have to have a volume of 20.619 cubic inches.

How big is that? Almost exactly a cube 2-3/4" on each side. That's a boulder? That's about the size of a softball! They must grow some awfully wimpy police chiefs in California, because my definition of a boulder is a rock big and heavy enough that I need a crow bar to pry it out of the ground, and two of us to put in the pickup truck. Anything smaller is just a rock. 2-pounds in one rock is barely large enough to escape being classified as a "pebble."

Kid throws rock, drives off bullies- been there, done that, had it done to me, big deal. So the bully got a bloody nose- big deal. Good learning experience. A rock thrown by a young girl is not likely to be a deadly weapon. This is just a case of how PC we have all become- scared of our own shadows - reminds me of the Warren Zevon song "Worrier King".

I can't add any info except the Fresno PD is well known for overreacting. As for Chief Dyer....well since this is a family forum i can't repeat his nickname here.

The DA, Elizibeth Eagan, is also well known for prosecuting cases that should never have gone to court.

Rev,
I'm sure your buddy can fill you in on both Dyer and Eagen.

Here's an update from the "bee"

http://www.fresnobee.com/state_wire/story/10924046p-11693322c.html

Maribel said she was playing on the sidewalk with her 6-year-old brother when Elijah rode by on his bike with a half-dozen neighborhood boys, who splattered them with water balloons. Police said Tuesday that there is no indication that any other boys were involved, but the police report also notes that no other boys were around to be interviewed when officers arrived.

Maribel threw a rock that hit Elijah on the head, opening a gash. While she ran to find Elijah's parents, a neighbor called 911. Police responded, arresting the girl. She was held in juvenile hall for five days, then released under house arrest for nearly a month. She's scheduled to appear on a charge of felony assault with a deadly weapon on Aug. 3. Prosecutors have declined to comment on the case since it's being handled in juvenile court.

Police said Tuesday that the AP story minimized the severity of the assault by failing to mention the size of the rock (5.5 inches by 3.75 inches) or the gash (the police report said it was four inches long; it turned out to be 1.2 inches long, according to hospital records cited by Beshwate) or the fact that Maribel scratched the officer's arm.

Several other key facts remain in dispute. For example, police say Maribel weighs 130 pounds. Her family says she's 90 pounds. Police say they believe Elijah is 6 years old; hospital records show he's 8 and a half, Beshwate said.

Dyer also took issue with the phrasing in last week's AP story that "police apparently came prepared for gang warfare" in response to the 911 call. Witnesses said three squad cars and a helicopter were at the scene, but Dyer said that initially, only two officers were dispatched, and they called for backup only after the girl resisted arrest.

Ultimately, the department said Tuesday, it sent six people, including three officers. The helicopter witnesses saw hovering above wasn't dispatched based on the 911 call, but it's not unusual for law enforcement helicopters to fly over disturbances, police said.