Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Little Criminals
One day in Fresno, California, 8-year-old Elijah Vang nailed 11-year-old Maribel Cuevas in the head with a water balloon, and called her names. Pissed, Cuevas picked up a rock and hucked it in Vang's direction, 25-30 feet away*. It hit him in the head, opening up an impressive-looking though hardly life-threatening gash. And now, the rest of the story:
In April, police arrested the Fresno girl on suspicion of felony assault after Elijah Vang was hit with a rock. She spent five days in Juvenile Hall, then was placed under house arrest and forced to wear a monitoring anklet for 30 days. She is expected to stand trial in Juvenile Court today**. If the allegation is found true, the fourth-grader could spend the next four years incarcerated.
Looking back through 20 years of tough-on-crime hysteria, I have little doubt that my childhood was nothing more than a string of unspeakable felonies.
* So says her family.
** UPDATE: Thanks to bully-vanquishing commenter Jennifer, we learn that the trial has now been scrapped. The two pre-teens will now go to "mediation."
|8.3.05 @ 12:27PM|#
Truly civilized societies recognize that there are serious differences between children and adults. We do not.
|8.3.05 @ 12:29PM|#
Does anybody think that this girl will become a law-abiding adult if she's incarcerated from age 11 to 15? Does anybody think she'll do well in school?
|8.3.05 @ 12:31PM|#
There are too many words in your question, Thoreau. It should read simply; Does anybody think? And the answer is no.
|8.3.05 @ 12:31PM|#
Truly civilized societies recognize that there are serious
differences between children and adults.
Looking into my oh-so-fallible crystal ball (I'm still
recalibrating it to account for the cosmic harmonies of the 10th
planet), I predict that some people on this forum will take issue
with you. Or that they would in a different context.
|8.3.05 @ 12:36PM|#
Do the law enforcement, etc. officials involved in this matter have no sense of shame? Crap, send the kid to counseling. But please, a trial?
|8.3.05 @ 12:37PM|#
Looking back through 20 years of tough-on-crime hysteria, I
have little doubt that my childhood was nothing more than a string
of unspeakable felonies.
I doubt I would ever get out of prison based on my childhood.
|8.3.05 @ 12:38PM|#
Hard to cut through the BS there. If the rock was 5 by 3 inches,
it couldn't weigh 2 pounds.
If it weighed anywhere near 2 pounds, then there is also no way she
throws it and hits him in the head from 25-30 feet away.
In all likelihood she got up at close range and bashed him with
it.
Honestly, unlike most here (I suspect) I'd have to say her extreme
overreaction warrants SOME type of legal intervention. You don't
smash a little kid in the head with a rock just for hitting you
with a water balloon. Four years of detention however, strikes me
as excessive to even be thinking about, unless this girl has some
other serious priors we don't know about yet.
Anyway, the good news is: it looks like both sides are being well
coached in the art of victimization and are both positioning
themselves for emotional distress claims. And isn't that the
important thing here?
|8.3.05 @ 12:38PM|#
It occurred to me that with reactions like this, we're basically
violating the social contract: kids don't enjoy the same privileges
as adults, but at the same time they're not (supposed to be)
saddled with adult responsibilities. But if you're going to hold a
little girl to the responsibility of facing adult consequences for
her behavior, then she should get adult privileges as well.
But of course that won't happen.
|8.3.05 @ 12:39PM|#
"Truly civilized societies recognize that there are serious
differences between children and adults. We do not."
Except on matters of sex and mind-altering substances, on which
this society views all children between 1 day and 17 and 364 days
old as having the same degree of capability for judgment. (And yes,
I saw thoreau's post.)
|8.3.05 @ 12:41PM|#
What kind of stone was it? As long as it was smooth and flat,
then the girl is okay, as long as she adhered to the waiting period
and has a permit.
However, if it was a nasty, jagged "assault rock", then they need
to send that little tart up the river.
Obviously, our government isn't doing enough to keep rocks out of
the hands of children.
|8.3.05 @ 12:42PM|#
I got in some fairly nasty altercations as a young kid, at least
one of which involved a hospital visit. Thank dog I grew up in an
era when it was understood that kids got in fights. I was certainly
punished, but jail wasn't even a question.
I'd like to know what good can come of incarcerating this girl.
|8.3.05 @ 12:43PM|#
I'd like to know what good can come of incarcerating this
girl.
The cops get to add to their "tough on crime" statistics without
risking themselves by arresting a big, scary guy who might fight
back.
|8.3.05 @ 12:43PM|#
And who the fuck dialed 911? Story doesn't say. I hope it was a
child too, because any adult whose response to the neighborhood
kids getting a little rough is to call 911 is even dumber then
these fucking cops and city officials. If anyone should be
arrested, it should be the idiot who called the cops rather than
intervening.
(no i don't actually think that that person should be held
criminally responsible, but seriously what a douchebag)
|8.3.05 @ 12:43PM|#
SR:
No, for most mind-altering substances the upper limit of childhood
is infinity. Because the nanny-state doesn't work if we don't
always need nannies.
Goo.
|8.3.05 @ 12:47PM|#
Kudos to the little rock thrower. Didn't start the fight, but
damn sure ended it.
They come at you with a knife, come at them with a gun. That's the
Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone.
|8.3.05 @ 12:47PM|#
independent worm,
She didn't overreact. The eight year rolled up with his posse and
started to harass her and her friends, launching insults, water
balloons and rocks at her in the process. She told him to leave and
when he didn't she toss a rock in his direction.
|8.3.05 @ 12:49PM|#
Brett,
If the cops hadn't interfered, Elijah would have learned a valuable
lesson about being a punk.
|8.3.05 @ 12:53PM|#
Brett-not only the Chicago way, but the way of the schoolyard. I
was brought up to believe that you should do whatever you can to
avoid the fight, but if you must resort do violence, you do so in a
way that ensures the person is not inclined to screw with you
again.
These folks would have preferred that the little girl run to an
authority figure to get help. It's Good training for life as an
(state dependant) adult.
|8.3.05 @ 12:55PM|#
Also-If "Mr. Maximus" wants to be consistent, he should come in
here and explain how the little girl should have taken her lumps
for the good of the collective.
In the end, a bunch of shrieking monsters surrounding one kid is
the face of the collective.
|8.3.05 @ 12:55PM|#
This sounds like the premise for Holes 2 in the
making.
It seems to me that there were a number of opportunities for the
adults involved to be responsible and handle the situation. That
they kept passing the buck until the kid ended up arrested says
more about our fear of litigation than anything imo.
|8.3.05 @ 12:55PM|#
If the cops hadn't interfered, Elijah would have learned a
valuable lesson about being a punk.
If the parents had handled this instead of cops, both kids would
have learned not to throw shit at each other and that would have
been that.
|8.3.05 @ 12:57PM|#
Number 6 - exactly!
The article also says the group was throwing rocks at the girl as
well, but apparently she was only hit by a water balloon. I guess
her mistake was not waiting to retaliate until after she
was actually struck by a rock. How f*cked up.
|8.3.05 @ 12:59PM|#
mtc has the best point here. The problem is not just that the
state, as ever, is on a power trip. The problem is that adults have
forgotten how, or refuse, to behave as adults.
Treating children as adults is the flip side of treating adults as
children.
|8.3.05 @ 1:01PM|#
Number 6--
In all seriousness, it is (at least technically) illegal for kids
to defend themselves at all. When I was teaching, the fight policy
at my school was that ANYBODY involved in a fight gets expelled. So
if you and six guys surround me and attack me, and I lash out
purely in self-defense (or even raise my arm to deflect a blow) I
get the same penalty as you.
No, no, Maribel should have been a good little girl and gone inside
the house when a bunch of little boys decided to harass her in her
own front yard. It's the American way.
|8.3.05 @ 1:02PM|#
The reaction is a bit extreme, but hey, the law's the law. She should not have fought back but should of instead called the cops.
|8.3.05 @ 1:03PM|#
Hakluyt, that was her side of the story. Why not mention "she
meant to hold back, but the rock kind of just slipped out of her
hand" while you're at it?
He had has side of the story too.
And in between, there was the truth, as any lawyer, judge or LEO
knows all too well.
Bottom line is: she's old enough to know better than to hit another
kid in the head with a rock, and she's old enough to take
responsibility for it. I agree the penalty sounds excessive, but
that has no bearing on what appears to be an obvious example of
excessive force in a situation where she really hasn't even
established a need for self defense.
The impression i get from reading the comments above is that folks
WANT her to be innocent so the charge won't stick. That's clouded
and wishful thinking. The correct view is: yes, she has committed a
serious battery, but the punishment being considered is grossly
excsessive.
PS -- the full article is more revealing than Matt's one sided
version.
|8.3.05 @ 1:04PM|#
Actually, going inside and getting an adult would have been the
right response. I always thought that rule #1 of self-defense is
that if you can get away from a bad situation then do so. Don't
stay there and help escalate it.
As wrong as her response was, the cops' response was MUCH
worse.
|8.3.05 @ 1:05PM|#
Jennifer- Is there no limit to the stupidity of public school systems? None at all?
|8.3.05 @ 1:06PM|#
Anybody care to comment on the similarities between this situation and the lemonade stand that was shut down?
|8.3.05 @ 1:07PM|#
Number 6--
Nope.
By the way, here's something I cut and pasted from Fred Reed's
column on this topic:
if I had a son who was ganging up with other boys to torment a
girl who didn�t speak English, or did (apparently Maribel barely
did), I�d slap him across the room so hard that he would think he
was an astronomer, and the next time the idea of doing such a thing
occurred to him, he would reflect, �Maybe this isn�t a good idea.
Dad doesn�t seem to like it." No, Dad doesn�t. If he came home with
a gash where she had belted him in trying to defend herself, I�d
say, �Son, you go to school to learn things. You just did.� Ask and
ye shall receive. Actions have consequences. There are things kids
need to know that you don�t do, especially boys, who are pack
animals.
|8.3.05 @ 1:09PM|#
Let's see, IW, the kids ganged up on and assaulted her. She
defended herself. Yup, guilty, guilty, guilty!
I'll say it first: the kid who got clobbered had it coming.
Self-defense is the first right.
MP|8.3.05 @ 1:09PM|#
The original post was commenting on rock throwing, not rock throwing in self defense. Are the complaints on this thread really about self defense or the fact that an 11-year old was sent to juvi? If this is simply a matter of a juvi issue, at what age should kids start being sent to juvi? I don't see this as being as cut and dried as many of you do.
|8.3.05 @ 1:11PM|#
Anybody care to comment on the similarities between this
situation and the lemonade stand that was shut down?
They both involve children breaking the law. All laws are meant to
protect us, it is wrong for anyone, child or adult to break any law
ever under any circumstances.
That being said it is not reasonable to punish children under 21
this severely.
|8.3.05 @ 1:14PM|#
MP, my complaints are multiple...
If a group of kids is throwing things (which included rocks, per
the article) at a person, particularly one on his/her property,
that person has every right to self defense.
Beyond that, the past and potential punishment is absurd. I don't
particularly see why she should have been sent to juvi for this,
but at most it should have ended there.
|8.3.05 @ 1:20PM|#
Hi, Jennifer!
Yes, civilized people and societies are aware of the differences
between children's minds and those of adults, and reflect this
awareness in their laws.
|8.3.05 @ 1:20PM|#
the full article is more revealing than Matt's one sided
version.
It certainly is. Let's see: It's Maribel who says that they were
throwing rocks. No independent confirmation even though there were
apparently four witnesses, possibly as many as ten.
Her lawyer says they've got the wrong rock. Well, if it drew blood,
it seems likely that it wouldn't be that hard to find the right
one.
The yard was gated. I don't know what kind of working class
neighbourhoods have gated yards 25-30 feet deep. It's unclear how
much danger she was in if she was behind a gate. As was mentioned,
also unclear how an 11-year old girl throws a 2 pound rock 25-30
feet. Over a gate.
Maribel is eleven. Elijah is eight. Put the average eleven-year-old
girl next to the average eight year-old boy and watch your
assumptions about the weaker sex evaporate.
|8.3.05 @ 1:21PM|#
Do the law enforcement, etc. officials involved in this
matter have no sense of shame? Crap, send the kid to counseling.
But please, a trial?
counseling? shit, a head shot from 30 feet? send her to baseball
camp!
|8.3.05 @ 1:26PM|#
To quote Jeff Cooper, this is the "age of the wimp."
And this truly is all about deferring to authority.
So... What happens when a little league pitcher loses his grip and
beans another kid in the helmet? Arrest?
At this point I'm just trying to figure out how isolated this
incident is. I know schools have a zero tolerance policy, which is
why I'm keeping my kids out of public school. I've never personally
heard of cops getting involved in kiddie-disputes in my area, so I
dunno.
|8.3.05 @ 1:28PM|#
I don't know what kind of working class neighbourhoods have
gated yards 25-30 feet deep...
I assumed from this they were referring to the chain link fences
that enclose many yards in poor neighborhoods in California.
They're everywhere, easily 25 feet from sidewalk to porch.
|8.3.05 @ 1:33PM|#
counseling? shit, a head shot from 30 feet? send her to
baseball camp!
No kidding. Little did poor Elijah know he was throwing water
balloons at Amanda Whurlitzer.
|8.3.05 @ 1:36PM|#
I don't know what happened that day. I've read the article, and
the accounts differ greatly (surprise). Some of the details sound
fishy. From what I've read, it sounds like even in the best case
scenario (she's being pelted with rocks from multiple people) she
handled it the wrong way (common sense says that no matter how
right you are you shouldn't perpetuate a bad situation if escape is
a safe option). I'm not going to launch into any sermons on the
sanctity of self-defense on behalf of a girl who injured a younger
kid with a rock.
What I do know is that this should have been handled by parents,
and sending her away for 4 years would be a travesty.
|8.3.05 @ 1:38PM|#
The cops probably had the wrong rock. If it really weighed two pound he would have had a concussion.
|8.3.05 @ 1:40PM|#
To put this into perspective, once when I was around 8 I threw
rocks at a 40 year old neighbor. (The reasons behind it is a long
story.) He chased me, but I was a fast little runner, and got away.
He called the cops; the cops showed up, and they basically were
choking back laughter as they told me it's generally not a good
idea to throw rocks at people. They left, and that was that.
Like I said yesterday, I miss the 70s.
|8.3.05 @ 1:42PM|#
I sure hope some expensive big shot lawyer defends the little girl for free. This is another example of the over bearing safety police trying to control everybody. This way too drastic for the young girl.
|8.3.05 @ 1:43PM|#
I agree with Jennifer about the rock the police picked up - I
don't think they do aggressive forensics with fighting children.
It's not CSI: Playground.
It is pretty absurd that this was/is being handled by the police
rather than the parents of the kids involved. Talk about the state
acting in loco parentis. In loco crazy, abusive, drunk
parentis.
|8.3.05 @ 1:46PM|#
When I was younger my friends and I got into fights all the time. We fought, parents made us apologize to each other, and that was the end of the disput. Are teaching our kids to complain about every little thing these days? It's like our society became one great big therapy session.
|8.3.05 @ 1:50PM|#
Am I the only one that keeps having flashbacks to the "Cartman's Hate Crime" episode of South Park?
|8.3.05 @ 1:50PM|#
Not to threadjack too much, but considering how long it's
already taking us to declare victory in our six-week war with Iraq,
can you IMAGINE what our military will be like when all of the
grunts are members of the "Don't you dare fight back" generation?
"Hey! That insurgent threw a bomb at me! I'm gonna tell!"
Of course by then the insurgents won't even need bombs; all they'll
have to do is light a cigarette and our troops will run screaming
away from the secondhand smoke.
|8.3.05 @ 1:51PM|#
From what I read, it was the aunt of one of Maribel's playmates
who called 911 to report the head injury after the boy got hit. The
cops over-responded with three squad cars and a helicopter, and
made a spectacle of the whole unfortunate incident.
The kids were acting like kids. The boys were taunting her and
throwing things at her, she got mad and threw something back,
probably the first handy object. That's what kids do because they
are still learning to develop better ways of dealing with
conflict.
Holding her for five days and allowing her parents only one
half-hour visit is already excessive. The idea of felony charges is
a travesty.
|8.3.05 @ 1:51PM|#
Thinking over the post I just made, I realized how appropriate the second paragraph was. The state (police) acted like an abusive parent. Rather than saying, "That was very bad! We're going over there right now to apologize, and you're grounded for a month!" the emissaries of the state tackled her, and physically threatened her. They plan to, in effect, ground her for the next 5 years. When you expect the state to be your daddy, it might start acting that way.
|8.3.05 @ 1:54PM|#
More from the Fred Reed column:
How is it that the police department needs three squad cars, an
ambulance, and a freaking helicopter to subdue an annoyed girl of
eleven? In my many years of riding with the police, I knew them to
be men, gutsy, hard-core, willing to go to bad places full of bad
people. You might like them or you might not, and you might have
reason either way. But they weren�t pansies. Real cops would be
stone embarrassed to arrest little girls on assault charges. Not
these cops, though.
|8.3.05 @ 1:56PM|#
They should make a Reno 911 episode about a situation like
this.
Those cops got their asses handed to them by the guys with
paintball guns.
Matt Welch|8.3.05 @ 1:57PM|#
I've updated the post with a "so sayeth her parents" on the 25-30 foot claim.
|8.3.05 @ 1:58PM|#
thoreau,
If the parents had handled this instead of cops, both kids
would have learned not to throw shit at each other and that would
have been that.
Nah, running off the mommy or daddy only encourages the
bully.
Actually, going inside and getting an adult would have been the
right response.
That only encourages the bully.
Jennifer,
In all seriousness, it is (at least technically) illegal for
kids to defend themselves at all.
Sounds like how Britain treats its adults. Great quote.
independent worm,
I read the full article. The eight year old bully got taught a
lesson.
|8.3.05 @ 1:59PM|#
I find it incredibly ironic that the girl is being held responsible for "escalating" the conflict, given the extremity of the way the police came down on her.
|8.3.05 @ 2:00PM|#
I've updated the post with a "so sayeth her parents" on the
25-30 foot claim.
damn. i really thought the state had unwittingly stumbled upon the
next big thing with this little girl.
|8.3.05 @ 2:08PM|#
These folks would have preferred that the little girl run to
an authority figure to get help. It's Good training for life as an
(state dependant) adult.
...And good training for another helpless, forlorn woman. We need
more of those.
Hey, in the cops' defense: she could've been a terr'ist. ...She
was foreign. Well, wasn't she? :P
|8.3.05 @ 2:10PM|#
I guess I meant to say "is" and "isn't she". I suppose her life isn't over...yet.
Jon Bristow|8.3.05 @ 2:15PM|#
Chalk up another vote for incredulity at a 2 pound rock being
thrown 25-30 feet.
I'm not sure /I/ (a grown man) could throw that well... Especially
not something that wasn't designed for throwing...
That's at least a potato [that you get at mid-range steak places]
sized rock...
|8.3.05 @ 2:17PM|#
When you're outnumbered by four or five to one, how the hell are you supposed to defend yourself WITHOUT "escalating" the conflict? It reminds me of the old Virginia law (which they were talking about changing when I moved away, but I don't know if they did) which said that if an unarmed person attacks you, you may NOT use weapons to defend yourself, because that would be "escalation." So if my weak skinny self is walking down the street and a big muscular bodybuilder starts to strangle me, legally all I can do is try to fight him off with my bare hands. And if I die--well, the cops aren't required to portect me anyway; all they have to do is arrest me if I protect myself.
|8.3.05 @ 2:21PM|#
Jennifer-
I have no idea what the law says, but common sense says that if you
can safely remove yourself from the situation (e.g. go inside your
house when the 8 year-old boy throws rocks) then do so.
Once again, I'm not defending the decision to prosecute
her. But I'm not going to let the state's horrible
decision blind me to the girl's bad decision either.
|8.3.05 @ 2:22PM|#
Let's see, IW, the kids ganged up on and assaulted her. She
defended herself. Yup, guilty, guilty, guilty!
#6, if you read the article more closely, you'd see that she only
CLAIMED she was ganged up on when the cops arrested her. However,
that is apparently far from the truth.
And it makes sense, the way she portrayed it. She knew she was
wrong, so she inflated the other kids actions to try and justify
what she did. So one kid becomes "a gang" and one water balloon
becomes "rocks." She hoped to make her action look more plausible
to the cops.
The problem with HER STORY is that the cops found (A) NO EVIDENCE
of other kids joining an attack, and (B) NO EVIDENCE anyone threw a
rock at her. All the police found was her apologizing for splitting
the kid's head open with a rock.
If you're going to take the self-serving statement of someone being
arrested to be The Truth and ignore all the other facts in the
story, that is your prerogative, but passing that off as the truth
is not helping anyone understand this any better.
|8.3.05 @ 2:22PM|#
Thoreau--
If it were an 18-year-old, I might agree. But as Hakluyt already
pointed out, the only way to make bullies stop is to stand up to
them. Had this girl gone into the house or ran for Mommy, then the
boys would know they could get under her skin and they'd up the
harassment level next time.
Bastard of Art and Commerce|8.3.05 @ 2:23PM|#
In fourth grade, we had a new kid come mid-year. He was from LA
and made a big show of being a badass. He very vocally called out
every boy in the class "tomorrow I'm kicking your ass and the day
after that, I'm kicking your ass."
The teacher took him aside, and explained that he didn't have to
kick anyone's ass, nobody was going to kick his ass, and generally
ass kicking wasn't the way to make friend. He started bawling, the
teacher had us eat lunch with the poor guy and that was that. It's
amazing what a little commonsense, compassion and flat out
explanation can do to help most kids.
This was 1979. Can you imagine the legal and pyschological throw
down had that happened in 2005?
|8.3.05 @ 2:24PM|#
IW--
Even if it was just water balloons, the girl was minding her own
business playing in her own yard when this brat/these brats started
harassing her.
|8.3.05 @ 2:28PM|#
I'm surprised nobody's said it yet: Won't somebody think of the children? Or are we only supposed to think of some of the children?
|8.3.05 @ 2:31PM|#
thoreau,
Sorry, that only encourages bullies to come after you.
IW,
...that the cops found (A) NO EVIDENCE of other kids joining an
attack, and (B) NO EVIDENCE anyone threw a rock at her.
You actually don't know this. You are merely making this up.
|8.3.05 @ 2:32PM|#
Michael--
I, personally, am thinking of the children who should be allowed to
play in their own damned yards. And if some boys start harassing
said children, I think those children should be allowed to defend
themselves and CONTINUE playing, rather than have to go inside the
house until the boys decide to "let" her come outside again without
being harassed.
|8.3.05 @ 2:35PM|#
I.W.,
Do you think that a police department which obviously overreacts
(and we can agree that anything more than a single squad car was an
overreaction, I hope) is less likely to lie than a kid
who's been caught doing something wrong?
I'm not saying the girl isn't lying, but it seems to me that cops
lie just as often as children do.
|8.3.05 @ 2:38PM|#
From the article:
Police offer a different version. Officers maintain that
no other boys were involved in the incident.
Elijah threw only one water balloon, they
said.
And yeah, i know the cops aren't the font of truth themselves often
times. Then again, neither are 11 year old kids. In this situation
though, i'm going with the cops because (a) they had no real
incentive to get into this one way or the other, while (b) Maribel
had every reason on earth to make up a whopper of a tale to try and
wriggle out of trouble.
Some of you guys are too much. Busting a kid's head open with a
rock is a case of "kids will be kids" or "self defense", YET,
throwing a water balloon is "bullying."
|8.3.05 @ 2:39PM|#
I only heard that the boy's parents refused to press the charges when all of this happend.
|8.3.05 @ 2:39PM|#
You actually don't know this. You are merely making this
up.
I only know what I read in the papers. See my previous post.
|8.3.05 @ 2:41PM|#
IW--
Throwing a water balloon is "bullying" when you throw it not as
part of a friendly water fight, but at someone who's minding her
own business and doesn't want to play with you. Throwing a rock is
self-defense if you're minding your own business and then some twit
throws a water balloon at you.
And the cops are either lying or mistaken about the rock--a
two-pound rock connecting with an eight-year-old skull would have
causes far more serious injuries.
|8.3.05 @ 2:43PM|#
As far as how to dissuade bullies, it certainly isn't just the
child's responsibility. Especially when there are large physical
differences.
If a child attacks another child, then it's the adults'
responsibility to separate the aggressive child from from the
non-aggressive ones, much more than it's the victim's
responsibility to fight back.
If my son was beaten up by a group of older, bigger kids and their
parents (who I would contact before the police) were unable to
prevent it from happening again (to any kid, not just mine), I
think I would call the police and file charges, the same way I
would if I was assaulted myself.
|8.3.05 @ 2:47PM|#
Jane wrote
"All laws are meant to protect us, it is wrong for anyone, child or
adult to break any law ever under any circumstances."
All laws are meant to protect someone, but not necessarily us. It
is illegal, but not necessarily wrong, to break them. Or maybe you
were being sardonic? If so, I'm with you.
|8.3.05 @ 2:48PM|#
Okay, good. The trial idea has been scrapped:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2005/08/03/national/a103922D27.DTL
|8.3.05 @ 2:48PM|#
Throwing a rock is self-defense if you're minding your own
business and then some twit throws a water balloon at
you.
Self defense? Or retaliation?
|8.3.05 @ 2:50PM|#
IW,
...(a) they had no real incentive to get into this one way or
the other...
They have plenty of incentive actually. They already look foolish
enough as it is. Use your brain mate.
Officers maintain that no other boys were involved in the
incident. Elijah threw only one water balloon, they
said.
Compare this with what you wrote:
...that the cops found (A) NO EVIDENCE of other kids joining an
attack, and (B) NO EVIDENCE anyone threw a rock at her.
These two statements aren't equivalent with one another.
|8.3.05 @ 2:53PM|#
Not to threadjack too much, but considering how long it's
already taking us to declare victory in our six-week war with Iraq,
can you IMAGINE what our military will be like when all of the
grunts are members of the "Don't you dare fight back" generation?
"Hey! That insurgent threw a bomb at me! I'm gonna
tell!"
To continue threadjacking, I was very impressed by Stephanie
Gutman's book The Kinder, Gentler, Military. The introduction's
available here.
In the UK at the moment we have a discussion about the treatment of
military recruits which I find surreal. I only accept the existence
of a standing army as a necessary evil, and I'm definately not keen
on invading places on a whim. But the fact is that if you're going
to train soliders to fight in a war then you cannot treat them as
five year olds. I could just about believe the present controversy
if it was discussed in terms of "abuse", but I would still be
sceptical. In the end I think that to properly prepare people for
combat you probably have to abuse them somewhat.
But when training of recruits is discussed in terms of bullying my conclusion is that this is not an army any more.
It is some sort of state run creche for young "adults".
|8.3.05 @ 2:53PM|#
IW--
Self-defense. But how would YOU suggest this little girl have dealt
with it? Let the little boys chase her inside and make her stop
playing? Tell Mommy and give the boys more ammunition for the next
go-round? Try and ignore the deluge?
Or maybe she should have called the cops.
|8.3.05 @ 2:53PM|#
IW,
Basically, you read into the statement that "no evidence" was
found, when in fact the cops made no statement of the kind.
|8.3.05 @ 2:55PM|#
Ooops, my link on bullying in the British army...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4675885.stm
|8.3.05 @ 2:57PM|#
Jennifer,
The story states that she was ordered to attend a "mediation
program" with the bully. It also says that the mayor and police
chief stated that the charge was appropriate. If indeed it was
appropriate it seems a bit odd to end the ordeal by sending the two
to a "mediation program."
|8.3.05 @ 2:57PM|#
In this situation though, i'm going with the cops because
(a) they had no real incentive to get into this one way or the
other
The cops have every incentive to justify their idiotic behavior in
this case.
Which is done by making shit up about 2 pound rocks, and perhaps by
claiming that poor little Elijah was just minding his business when
big mean Maribel broke his water balloon with her stupid face and
then winged him in the head with a freakin' cinder block.
|8.3.05 @ 2:57PM|#
Rod,
Jane=Juanita=troll. (If not a troll, then mildly retarded.)
Jennifer is right about self-defense vs. aggression. It's a simple
case of instigator/agressor vs. reactor.
I can't believe that you would take a group of little boys'
statements as gospel truth. My guess is the cops just decided what
the real story was based on a democratic majority: ("Oh, well
4 little boys say that the girl was terrorizing
them and they were doing absolutely nothing to provoke her. So they
must be telling the truth, since they all deny that they were doing
anything to bother her, and no one is siding with her.") Any of you
fucks seen Donnie Darko? I'm sure it's not insane to imagine a
bunch of crude little bastards ganging up on a girl at that age --
particularly if she is foreign. Kids are cruel, and even
sociological differences like gender and/or ethnicity will cause
needless harassment.
Perhaps the little girl overreacted by mindlessly throwing a rock
at someone. But don't assume that just because she's allegedly
apologizing profusely that she's doing so because she was
instigating violence on that boy. Maybe she just feels bad because
she didn't mean to injure him that badly. I'm just saying it's not
fair to her to make assumptions about her motives for apologizing,
IW. You're assuming she's guilty of being the agressor.
|8.3.05 @ 2:58PM|#
Jennifer, you continue to ASSUME the girl was attacked by a gang of rock-throwing maniacs. Please read the article.
|8.3.05 @ 2:59PM|#
This is so similar to an incident I had when I was about 10. I
was visiting a "friend's" farm and we were wandering in the woods
with another friend of his who I guess he wanted to impress more
than me. I was bending over looking in a creek, and my "friend"
pushed me from behind so I would fall in the creek. I managed to
catch my balance and leap across the creek without getting wet. In
instinctive reaction, I bent down and picked up a flattened soda
can on the ground and whinged it at him. Well, it curved and hit
him right in the mouth with the edge. He had to have about 10
stitches. We weren't so much "friends" after that.
He, too, deserved it. But to think I could have spent 4 years in
juvy . . . . ???
|8.3.05 @ 3:01PM|#
IW--
I did read the article, and several others on the same topic. And
you didn't answer my question--what do YOU think she should have
done?
|8.3.05 @ 3:03PM|#
When I was being beat up by two boys as a little kid, my big brother saw the altercation and ran out and whupped the crap out of both sorry little boys. All you need is a big bro with an anger management problem. He'll take the heat. (Bonus: maybe he would do the jail time for you, too!)
|8.3.05 @ 3:03PM|#
poor little Elijah was just minding his business when big
mean Maribel broke his water balloon with her stupid face and then
winged him in the head with a freakin' cinder block.
Hee hee hee.
|8.3.05 @ 3:09PM|#
I don't see how this girl did anything wrong. "Leaving the area" only encourages the bullies to chase her off every time they see her. She did exactly the right thing by braining that little bastard with a rock: she stood up for her rights. Unfortunately, after the state gets involved the lesson learned is quite different. The girl has learned that she's supposed to acquiese when confronted by a group of boys hurling taunts and rocks at her. Good idea. The bully has learned that if he assualts someone and they escalate the situation by doing nothing more than having better aim than he does, the state will be on his side. Why just throw rocks and water balloons at a girl when you can get her arrested? Here we have the makings of a future politician. If anything, the girl ought to get one free shot with the rock of her choice at the other three boys.
|8.3.05 @ 3:11PM|#
Seeing as how this was also on brickbat today, we can look at
its story. According to that, Elijah Vang (who is 9 in that story)
acknowleged that he started the fight.
And to those of you who think an 11-year-old girl can't throw a two
pound rock 25-30 feet (less than 10 yards, or about the width of a
not-to-wide street), I bet you don't have any kids. My stepdaugher
was able to throw a football about 40 feet when she was 10, and she
is still a shrimp at 12.
|8.3.05 @ 3:14PM|#
Hakluyt -- I understand there is a minor difference in meaning
between the two statements.
Nevertheless, the STORY does NOT indicate that the cops found, or
that there was, ANY evidence to support Maribel's tale. It appears
the cops believe she was lying about the whole thing. The story
offers NO evidence to corroborate her gang-of-boys-throwing-rocks
claim. Do you believe the officers DID find such evidence, but
aren't sharing?
Cops lie and plant evidence all the time. But they usually reserve
this for real bad guys they know are dirtbags who they just want
off the street. Sometimes, they do it to help out a DA with designs
on state office in a high profile or must-win case. Other than
that.. not so much. I have a hard time believing they did all that
here, where there's nothing to gain, and everything to lose on the
PR front.
I can understand that once a mistake is made, then cops will go to
the wall to defend it. But what i see in this article, the only
mistake is by the DA's office in charging it so high. Nothing
suggests the cops were mistaken as to whether Maribel hit the boy
with the rock and busted his head open. In fact, i don't see anyone
in the article denying it; only spinning it to make it sound less
bad or to try and justify it.
|8.3.05 @ 3:23PM|#
I don'tunderstand why minorites call 911 on family members. I
grew up in a minority neighborhood in the 70s and a house would
need to be on fire for someone to call the cops on a kid.
It seems every time you read in a paper about a questionable
shooting it seems it's a familty member who called about their
druck briother who was waving a knife. And then the person is
surprised that the cops shoot their brother dead.
Who did this caller think would show up when she dropped the dime
on a little girl in the barrio, social workers?
|8.3.05 @ 3:23PM|#
I think part of the problem is that the self-defense laws in the
US are so screwed up.
That means you have one set of people posting about what they think
it is reasonable for the girl to have done, and you have another
group of people posting about what it would have been LEGAL for the
girl to have done, and although the two sets of actions don't
match, both groups are using the phrase "self-defense".
As far as I am concerned, reasonable and just self-defense laws
would allow the victim of an attack or unwanted contact to use
whatever means were necessary to stop the attack or unwanted
contact. "Necessity" would be measured relative to the specifics of
the situation. There would be no requirement to withdraw.
That would mean [to address a post above] that if five people
attack you with their bare hands, you can fight back with a
chainsaw, because the chainsaw balances out the other side's
numerical advantage. If attacked by someone larger and stronger
than you, you could hit him with a tire iron. The tire iron
balances out the other party's physical advantage. And so
forth.
It would also mean that successive escalations would be reflexively
justified until the attack stopped, because one can only measure
the necessary level of force when the attack has actually stopped.
If someone is throwing water balloons at me, and they won't stop
when I throw twigs, dandelions, or grass clippings back at them,
but they DO stop when I throw a rock, that would seem to
demonstrate that the rock was the necessary level of force.
One other point that I'd like to address is the ongoing assertion
by some people that this matter should have been dealt with by the
kids alone, or by parents, and not by the police. I actually think
it's appropriate that the police are involved - but the police
should have arrested the little boy, and not the little girl. If we
were talking about adults here, and an adult from my town ran on to
my yard and starting throwing objects at me - ANY objects - and
wouldn't leave when I told them to, leaving me no choice but to hit
them with a garden hoe, when the police came they sure as hell
wouldn't be arresting ME. They would arrest the guy who was
harassing me in my yard.
The whole "kids will be kids" philosophy is incredibly damaging to
children, and does nothing to "socialize" them or "teach them about
life". If we want to teach kids about life, we should teach them
that if they harass people standing in their own yards, they're
going to the pokey. That is the life lesson kids need to learn.
They certainly DON'T need to learn that it's OK to screw with
people and that not only can your victim not fight back, but that
no one else is allowed to intervene in your "play".
|8.3.05 @ 3:26PM|#
IW,
Its not a minor difference in meaning, its a major difference in
meaning.
Shawn Smith,
Now we get the real story, not the spun one put out by the facist
cops. :)
|8.3.05 @ 3:28PM|#
Jennifer -- for starters, she should have put the rock down and
not thrown it. After that, its really up to her. She had lots of
possibilities. As far as we know, there was one boy, one balloon.
So really, what's the big deal? She could have chased the kid away,
told his parents, whatever. She might have gotten her own balloons
and done the same back to him. Who knows. It's really not a big
deal to get hit with a water balloon.
I realize we are a Sensitive people with lots of Pride and Outrage
and Umbrage; and that we can't be "dissed" in public so our
outraged egos permit us to indulge unlimited fantasies of vengeance
and violence in response to even the tiniest of slights... but this
is, technically, still a civilized society. Maybe bashing people
over the head with a rock was a good way to do things back in the
caveman days, but we've moved beyond that.
Or so it would seem.
|8.3.05 @ 3:32PM|#
IW--
So in your mind, a civilized society is one where you don't have
the right to sit in your own yard without being hit by a water
balloon?
|8.3.05 @ 3:38PM|#
I think the bottom line is that nobody here knows what happened,
but we do know that trying to prosecute her was absolutely
unjustified.
You guys can believe whoever you need to believe to make whatever
point you need to make, but all I see is a choice between:
1) A little boy with a history of making trouble who got into a
fight
2) A little girl trying to avoid a draconian penalty
3) Cops trying to justify a draconian decision.
I don't see ANY credible parties here. Somebody's telling the truth
about something, but I have no clue who it is.
Anyway, even though I still think she should have gone inside the
house and gotten an adult to deal with the kid (or, more
accurately, his parents) that point is a minor point in the grand
scheme of things. What matters is that she's no longer being
prosecuted!
|8.3.05 @ 3:40PM|#
Thoreau--
She got off this time, but I'm sure the cops will overreact again.
Heaven forbid a little girl being hassled while she's playing try
to defnd herself.
And the cops should all be fired anyway; if you need multiple squad
cars and a helicopter to arrest an unarmed little girl then you're
clearly too much of an incoompetent wuss to do your job.
Timothy|8.3.05 @ 3:41PM|#
A football doesn't weigh two pounds.
This is total kids stuff. I can't tell you how many times I whinged
rocks at friends or bullies when I was a kid. Heck, we used to have
"neighborhood wars" where all the younger kids would have dirt
clod/rock/stick fight with the older kids in the neighborhood. I
grew up in the suburbs, and that's what we did to pass time during
summers when the houses in the neighborhood were being built.
I also have to echo other commenters who suggest that ending an
altercation started with you is the best alternative if you can't
simply leave. If I go the rest of my life without getting into a
fight, I'll be pretty happy, but I took that time in college
learning Jeet Kune Do and Jiujitsu so that if some jerk starts a
fight with me, I'll end it and he won't like the result. My JKD
instructor called it being "harmless like a rattlesnake".
This also reminds me of something else he said: "Use your
environment, never underestimate the power of a rock. Nobody will
get close to you if you're hurling rocks at him."
|8.3.05 @ 3:43PM|#
I didn't realize the French were so big on defending themselves against aggression ;)
|8.3.05 @ 3:49PM|#
Jennifer
I have consistently characterized this as an OVERREACTION on the
girl's part. Not saying the boy was right -- he shouldn't have hit
her with a water balloon, apparently. At least in Maribel's mind,
they were not playing.
However, just because somebody was wronged you does NOT
give you a license to do whatever damn fool thing you
want. The "VICTIM" isn't automatically right in her
response just because she's been harmed in some way. There ARE
limits on what even our nations' beloved victims are allowed to
do.
|8.3.05 @ 3:53PM|#
IW-
What did you think of Fluffy's 3:23 comment that a victim should be
allowed to do whatever is necessary to make an assault stop? Bear
in mind, if the boys had run away and Maribel chased them and
continued to throw rocks, that would be a completely different
matter. But screw this idea that in any conflict, the AGGRESSOR
gets to decide what is and is not fair.
If nothing else, I daresay this boy learned a valuable lesson about
leaving people the hell alone when they don't want to be
bothered.
|8.3.05 @ 3:54PM|#
There ARE limits on what even our nations' beloved victims
are allowed to do.
IW,
You make it sound like Maribel slit the boy's throat. Sorry, but I
don't think throwing a rock in retaliation is unheard of or out of
the question as a means of retaliation. To be hypocritical and
speculate on why she was profusely apologizing: I'm guessing she
probably didn't intend to wound the boy so greatly, as much as she
intended to get him to go away.
|8.3.05 @ 3:54PM|#
I suspect the reason the aunt called 911 was to get an ambulance
for the boy with the gash in his head. I doubt she wanted the
police to come.
Given her limited English, it's quite possible that the operator
would think there was gang warfare going on, which might explain
why the police sent the force they did.
|8.3.05 @ 3:54PM|#
Does anybody honestly think that this is the best test case to use when articulating general rules of self defense?
|8.3.05 @ 3:59PM|#
Does anybody honestly think that this is the best test case
to use when articulating general rules of self defense?
Not the best, but it'll have to do.
|8.3.05 @ 4:04PM|#
I was smashed in the head with a rock when I was a kid. I
believe the consequences were my spelling skillz. That and my
parents talked with his parents. There were no police helicopters
or felony charges involved.
Incidentally, how much did it cost for that chopper to take down
this girl?
Could we see this on an episode of "Cops", please? That would be
great. Thanks.
|8.3.05 @ 4:04PM|#
Parodist,
That distinctly sounded like a threat. At least to me. Then again,
if it's not too big...
|8.3.05 @ 4:05PM|#
Jennifer -- You're absolutely right; if a wet shirt isn't
grounds for a split skull then i don't know what is. What was i
thinking? Tune in tomorrow when the logic on H&R leaves me no
choice but to agree that being jostled in an elevator justifies
taking a baseball bat to somebody's knees.
smacky -- And you guys make it sound like the boy slit Maribel's
throat. Apologies tend to be admissions of wrongdoing, accompanied
by a seeking of foregiveness for having done the wrong. That's how
i took it.
|8.3.05 @ 4:07PM|#
the question it seems no one is asking is, why did this girl
refuse to play the water balloon game with her neighborhood boys?
she may be a foreigner, but it seems she has already picked up the
lamentable individualist attitudes of our once-great nation.
she would rather sit behind her fence than play with other
children, reinforcing the social bonds on which the community
depends. when the boys insisted that she take part in community
play, she threw a rock at them. the fact that nearly all of you
side with such antisocial behavior speaks volumes.
|8.3.05 @ 4:07PM|#
IW-I base my presumption on the fact that I used to be a kid,
have seen kids in action, and know damn well that it's more likely
for a herd of boys to gang up on a little girl and deny it than for
a little girl to go apeshit with no cause. Both are possible, but
the first is by far more likely.
As for the crying: ever hurt someone more than you meant to? You
tend to feel bad, even if they had it coming.
|8.3.05 @ 4:09PM|#
I'm not sure why, but I am getting the same reading as IW on
this.
And thoreau is 100% right. I had a boy throw a stone at me at about
that age, for no apparent reason. I yelled at him, but I guess
retaliation didn't occur to me. (The entire neighborhood became
involved and he was duly punished by his parents.)
I think the "kids will be kids" argument can only be used here if
you absolve both parties.
|8.3.05 @ 4:12PM|#
Jennifer -- You're absolutely right; if a wet shirt isn't
grounds for a split skull then i don't know what is.
Uh, how about being hassled when you're on YOUR OWN PROPERTY? You
seem to have the opinion that unless the boy causes actual injury,
the girl should just fucking tolerate it.
|8.3.05 @ 4:15PM|#
Let's also keep in mind that the girl probably did not mean to split his skull, but only to drive the agressor(s) away. Mens rea and all that.
|8.3.05 @ 4:27PM|#
Jennifer -- I'm not sure how to take your comment. Surely you do
recognize that there is some kind of limit on the use of force to
retaliate against minor injuries? Even if they happen on your own
property.
Also you indicated above you believe Maribel acted in self defense.
That's true... IF the terrifying and life-threatening Water Balloon
Blitz was still in progress. Once it was over and there were no
more airborne rubbery water-sacs to defend against, it moved into
the realm of retaliation.
That seems to be the root of our disagreement.
Also, please note the date for Halloween on your calendars
everyone. I don't want to read about any reasonoids gunning down a
"masked gang of egg throwing trespassers" in "self defense". :)
|8.3.05 @ 4:28PM|#
"I actually think it's appropriate that the police are involved
- but the police should have arrested the little boy, and not the
little girl."
No, for crying out loud, the police shouldn't have arrested anyone.
A large grim-faced cop should have put a fatherly arm around each
of the kids in turn and gently explained that it's a bad idea to
bully people, or to throw potentially deadly missiles at others
(even if they are being dicks), and made each of the kids apologize
to the other. In other words, he would have de-escalated the whole
matter. That's the kind of judgment I thought we paid cops to
exercise.
"Given her limited English, it's quite possible that the operator
would think there was gang warfare going on, which might explain
why the police sent the force they did."
This explanation is the only one that makes any sense at all of the
police's behavior. Of course, once they learned that they weren't
dealing with gang warfare but with a schoolyard brawl, they should
have adjusted their reaction accordingly.
|8.3.05 @ 4:34PM|#
IW--
According to some of the articles I read, she threw the rock AFTER
she told him to stop and he refused.
And she threw ONE rock. Had she thrown one, drawn blood, and
continued throwing more, that would be an entirely different
story.
And personally, I think you should be allowed a LOT of leeway when
it comes to defending your right to enjoy your own property (or
your parent's, at any rate). Had the dumb little boy left her
alone, none of this would have happened.
|8.3.05 @ 4:38PM|#
biggus dickus said:
"the fact that nearly all of you side with such antisocial behavior
speaks volumes"
Our respective names corroborate your thesis, eh?
|8.3.05 @ 4:46PM|#
This sounds like an experience of mine. Older boy throwing
rocks. I go home and fill up a squirt gun with ammonia. End of
story.
Probably qualify for WMD these days. Maybe Fresno needs some DHS
funds to buy a used Cobra. A little strafing might teach these
buggers a lesson.
|8.3.05 @ 4:55PM|#
Jennifer,
Mirabel is 11 and so it is possible that she has started
menstruating. According to your views in the Kansas case last week,
she would have the right to have sex if she wanted, with the
possibility that she would have to take responsibility for a child.
Yet in this case, you are perfectly willing to abnegate any
possibility of responsibility to her. How do you reconcile these
views?
Others,
I apologize for the thread-jacking.
MP|8.3.05 @ 5:18PM|#
If she has (consensual) sex that's her business, nobody
else's.
C'mon...I expected better than a kneejerk libertarian reaction from
you.
|8.3.05 @ 5:44PM|#
i don't believe this thread has already got 140+ posts. a kid threw a rock at a kid. in related news, a kid in louisiana just broke up with his first girlfriend, and there was a brief fistfight in a high school in new york.
|8.3.05 @ 6:11PM|#
a kid in louisiana just broke up with his first
girlfriend
I smell palimony! Implied contract, anyone?
|8.3.05 @ 6:15PM|#
MP--
Well, perhaps the parents' business as well. But what the hell does
that have to do with this topic? Let's say you have two
eleven-year-olds, each of whom just shoplifted a candy bar. The
first kid is sexually active; the second one's a virgin. Should the
first kid be tried for theft as an adult while the virgin goes to
juvenile court? Of course not. I don't know what connection
Anomdebus expected me to draw here.
|8.3.05 @ 6:26PM|#
Actually, to make a better analogy, let's say you have two eleven-year-olds, each of whom just threw a rock at a kid who needed stitches as a result. Does the virgin get in less trouble for this than the non-virgin?
|8.3.05 @ 6:38PM|#
Jennifer,
I did not mean that sexually active human beings are adults, though
you may or may not believe that.
Somehow, as I have read your views, someone who is biologically
fertile is mature enough to make decisions regarding sex, but not
regarding violence.
Just to be clear on my position: I think most minors are children,
though ideally, they should be able to prove that they are
competant to make their own choices. After that they can do
whatever their conscience tells them, but they can be punished as
adults if they break the law.
|8.3.05 @ 7:21PM|#
"Tune in tomorrow when the logic on H&R leaves me no choice
but to agree that being jostled in an elevator justifies taking a
baseball bat to somebody's knees."
You know something, Worm? I don't think this is far-fetched enough
to be a properly hyperbolic example.
If someone comes on an elevator, stumbles, and jostles me,
obviously it's not an assault.
But if three or four drunks get on an elevator, and decide to start
pushing me, just because they think it's funny [certainly not out
of the realm of possibility for a handful of drunks] I think I
would be perfectly entitled to start smashing their laughing faces
with a baseball bat, if I had one.
All you would have to do to be perfectly safe from my Bat of Doom
would be to refrain from tormenting strangers in public as your
evening's entertainment.
|8.3.05 @ 7:24PM|#
Somehow, as I have read your views, someone who is
biologically fertile is mature enough to make decisions regarding
sex, but not regarding violence.
First of all, this assumes that sex and violence are somehow
equivalent behaviors. I don't think so, despite the way they're
often hooked together when they're mentioned. By contrast, if I'd
previously said something like "11-year-olds should be tried as
adults if they commit violent crimes," then your confusion would be
more understandable.
Secondly, this isn't even about "violence" so much as it is a
typical childish reaction to typical childish behavior. Both
children did things that would most likely be crimes if committed
by adults; the question is are they still crimes when you're
talking about kids of 8 and 11?
Girl sits in yard. Boy comes by, shouting insults and throwing
things at her. Girl says Go Away. Boy remains. Girl throws rock and
hits boy in head, requiring a couple of stitches but no concussion
or long-term damage.
If *I* am the girl and the boy is some man in his twenties, then
the cops should probably get involved on some level. But not in
this case. If the cops are there at all, they should be acting in
the gruff-but-fatherly capacity mentioned by Seamus.
I could go on, but your second post makes me suspect you're
actually the latest incarnation of Juanita.
MP|8.3.05 @ 8:19PM|#
Jennifer,
I read anom's comments regarding minors, sex, and personal
responsibility as relating to statutory rape. If a minor was able
to assume absolute legal responsibility for their actions, then
statutory rape should not be a crime. If that poster was referring
to consensual acts between minors, then I too don't get the
point.
And please don't mention Juanita again.
|8.3.05 @ 8:31PM|#
You know, I always thought that the use of force should be a
last resort, not something you do whenever a punk needs to be
taught a lesson.
That's really what my argument boils down to. And let's keep in
mind that regardless of the size of the rock and the distances
involved, she clearly gave him a pretty nasty gash. A somewhat
harder impact and he could have had a concussion. Off by a few
inches and it could have been an eye injury.
I'm not saying she should have been prosecuted.
But I am saying that throwing a rock at a kid's head is not the
best way to "teach a punk a lesson." Don't let the prosecutor's
ridiculous actions blind us to basic facts of life.
|8.3.05 @ 8:39PM|#
MP--
Even if the topic is statutory rape it still can't be compared to
this case; the first question concerns what should be done to an
adult for consenting behavior that is only a crime because the
consenting person fell below a legal age limit, whereas this case
concerns what should be done to a child for NON-consenting behavior
that might be a crime for anyone ABOVE a certain age limit.
Thoreau--
I'm not necessarily saying the girl shouldn't be punished,
depending on the details; I'm just saying that the cops shouldn't
be involved in this case. If this were a girl with a long-term
record of walking around chucking rocks at people for no reason,
that would be a different story.
|8.3.05 @ 9:30PM|#
I saw Mirabel on the 6:30 news tonight and am now convinced she
was a victim of police profiling.
Also a victim of the fact we have too damn many police. They're
resorting to make-work.
|8.3.05 @ 10:29PM|#
I'm not necessarily saying the girl shouldn't be punished,
depending on the details; I'm just saying that the cops shouldn't
be involved in this case.
Um, that's what I've been saying the whole time. Every time I say
that her parents should have punished her, I include the disclaimer
that I vehemently oppose the police involvement. And then everybody
comes back at me with stuff about how she was defending herself and
he deserved it and whatnot.
FWIW, if I were her father I wouldn't punish her at this point.
She's suffered enough. My only point was that if this had been
handled properly there would have been no police involvement,
and instead her parents would have dealt with her.
The Wine Commonsewer|8.3.05 @ 11:25PM|#
Somebody is fibbing.
Here at Casa de las Rocas Grande (House of the Big Rocks) I rounded
up an oblong small rock about the same dimensions as the alleged
weapon. It weighed exactly 34.5 ozs (roughly the same). I asked my
9 year old son Jake to heave that thing. He threw it three times
and was never able to toss it more than 10-12 feet. That's a far
cry from the reported 25-30 feet. He might only be 9 and she was
11, but he has three years of Little League under his belt.
IO ERROR|8.4.05 @ 12:04AM|#
Policing in this country has gotten out of hand. Regardless of
who threw what at whom or how many people were involved, there was
no point in the police taking this as far as they did.
The
initial reports I saw had it that several boys were throwing
water balloons and rocks at her. If that's the case, and I have
little reason to believe it isn't at the moment, then it's
perfectly justifiable self-defense.
|8.4.05 @ 8:12AM|#
JK--
I read the Army-bully article you linked to, but I wish it gave
more information. When they complain about recruits being bullied,
are they talking about normal stuff like a drill sergeant yelling
insults at the recruits, or are they talking about recruits ganging
up on somebody and beating him up?
That book introduction about the "kinder, gentler" military was
pretty funny, though. In a sad, God-help-us-all sort of way.
|8.4.05 @ 11:33AM|#
Thought some of you might enjoy this link, given your endless
thirst for extreme vengeance in the face of minor indignity.
That'll teach THIS guy to go around disrespectificatin'
motherfuckers, yo!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/03/AR2005080301081_pf.html
A man lifting his infant daughter out of his car was killed in an
apparent case of road rage by a motorist "who obviously exploded"
and shot him four times at close range in front of dozens of
witnesses, authorities said.
The victim's 10-month-old girl was covered with blood but uninjured
when police found her in a car seat on the floor of the
vehicle.
.....
Bishop told investigators he was driving his wife to the train
station when Andrade's vehicle backed toward him on Main Street,
Cruz said. The two exchanged heated words.
"He said his wife was scared, and he said he was angry at that
encounter," Cruz said of Bishop. "He said he made up
his mind right there that he had to do
something."
|8.4.05 @ 11:41AM|#
Excellent point, IW. If I can sympathize with a little girl who throws rocks at rock-throwers, then it stands to reason I must also find murder an acceptable response to a guy who cuts me off in traffic, right?
|8.4.05 @ 12:14PM|#
As an aside.
Jennifer,
Virginia does recognize disparity of force in its self defense
laws. At least that's what the NRA taught me in the CCW class. In
your hypothetical example, if some roid raged baseball player came
after an average sized man, that average sized man would have a
strong (but not perfect) self defense case. Replace the average
sized man with an average sized woman and it becomes a near perfect
case.
|8.4.05 @ 12:21PM|#
Jennifer, well, it did end the assault didn't it? That guy won't
mess with old Mr Bishop again! (actually when i posted that i was
more thinking about Fluffy's violent revenge fantasy of 7:21 last
night. Freaky.) But then again, you have not so far shown any limit
to what you would consider self defense.
I take it that the Bishop example is one you'd consider "too much
force"? Can we get you to commit to that much?
|8.4.05 @ 12:30PM|#
JW--
My Virginia anecdote dates back to 1994; glad to hear they've
become more sensible since then.
Independent Worm--
Yes, if it makes you feel victorious, I will freely admit that
shooting a guy is too much of a response to being cut off in
traffic. But I still sympathize with a little girl who throws a
rock at a bully, and I hope that you, yourself, are capable of
making a distinction between the two.
|8.4.05 @ 12:36PM|#
Just so we're clear, the older kid who threw the rock at the younger kid is the one standing up to a bully?
|8.4.05 @ 12:44PM|#
Thoreau--
Yes. There's no age limits wherein a bully must be your age or
older, or it won't count. And several younger boys ganging up on
one older girl would certainly qualify as "bullying." Remember,
Thoreau, it's not like the little boy was just minding his own
business when the girl just walked up and chucked a rock for no
reason.
keith|8.4.05 @ 1:19PM|#
Heck, we used to have "neighborhood wars" where all the
younger kids would have dirt clod/rock/stick fight with the older
kids in the neighborhood.
We shot each otehr with BB Guns and bottle rockets. Kids got mad,
kids got hurt, kids had fun. Parents disciplined us, and a couple
times a cop showed up to lay the scare tactics on. It usually
worked, no one went to jail, and somehow, we all survived.
Man alive, I'm glad I grew up in the 70s. I truly pity any child in
today's environment. My generation is making for wretched
parents.
-Keith
|8.4.05 @ 1:59PM|#
Jennifer,
My question has nothing to do with consentual acts and nothing to
do with equivalence of sex and violence. My question is simply
about responsibility. One one hand, it seems you think an 11 year
old might be responsible enough to have sex (assuming
menstruation), but on the other hand they are not responsible
enough to understand the consequences of "childish [acts]".
The state says that you are responsible enough to drive when you
are 16, but you need to be 18 to smoke and 21 to drink alcohol.
That doesn't mean that they are "somehow equivalent behaviors".
Presumably, there was some logic behind these age decisions. There
is an understanding that the individual is responsible enough at
those ages to accept the responsibilities of those activities,
including punishments for transgressions.
As far as your 'juanita' suggestion, believe it or not it pains me
to get into conflicts. I almost didn't read the responses this
morning because I feared you might have misinterpreted again.
I may not have been 100% clear, but I made the wording simple with
the intent of getting something out vs having a 2000 word essay
that I scrap because it was a rambling mess. If objectively, this
misunderstanding was due to my unclear wording, I apologize.
|8.4.05 @ 2:18PM|#
My question is simply about responsibility.
Even so, anomdebus, there's a huge difference between being held
responsible in a situation where the only one who could possibly be
hurt is you, versus being held responsible in a situation where you
hurt someone else.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245