Girl tried for felony over thrown rock

[sui generis]

Eleven-year-old faces charge of assault with deadly weapon

FRESNO, California (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.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/03/girl.charged.ap/index.html

"The simple fact is that we have an 11-year-old girl who struck a boy in the head with a jagged-edged, two-pound river rock, that required him to have stitches," Dyer said. "That is a felony, assault with a deadly weapon, and we are very fortunate that that act did not cause a more serious injury, even death."

Elijah Vang, the boy who was injured by Maribel and who has acknowledged throwing a water balloon at her, was expected to testify at the trial.

(snip)

A brick weighs approximately six pounds and is considerably less dense than river rock. A two pound river rock is about the size of a child's fist.

Children are not usually great at physics, medicine, or causal outcomes. As a one-time child myself, I recall dodging (and sometimes pitching) very large sticks and stones, ENTIRE bricks, milk crates, bowling balls, and other humans, in addition to water balloons in our mock battles. Military brat, go figure, but . . .

I think this is insane - felony assault with a deadly weapon on an 11 year old child. Oh, woops, this happened in Freepersno, California - go figure. Have they lost their minds? I'm not advocating throwing rocks at people who annoy you but the law is seriously out of line here. This is certainly not the best method of addressing "public safety" for any party involved.

[Goldmund]

1. I agree with you

This is insane.

[SteppingRazor]

2. For trying to destroy this girl's life...

Police Chief Dyer should be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor and felony child endangerment. It would make just as much sense as charging the girl with assault with a deadly weapon.

[Orrex]

3. What if the boy had died? Just curious.

Or suppose that he suffered a lifelong, debilitating brain injury?

I'm not saying that the girl should be jailed for life, but what, to us liberals, is a suitable response to her action?

Of course, now we can expect to see legislation aimed at banning lawsuits against rock manufacturers whose products are used to commit assaults...

[rodeodance]

5. She should be reprmened by her parents (harshly--not physical)--not

by the courts. My thinking is this that after this ruckus--she has learned her lesson.

[Mairead]

6. It would have been a tragedy. Also an unintended, unforeseen outcome.

AKA an accident.

If the boy hadn't been playing juvenile dominance games....

[Lars39]

8. Indeed. How often had he been doing this to her?

[Mairead]

61. My guess would be 'often'

[Orrex]

16. So, the boy was asking for it?

I don't buy the "juvenile dominance games" angle, I'm afraid.

That statement could as easily be made about a provocatively-dressed raped victim who, the defense would argue, was engaged in "dominance games based on sexual signalling."

[Lars39]

He threw the first assault weapon. Why wasn't he charged, too?

[Orrex]

22. Does it really seem equivalent to you?

A water balloon and a jagged rock? Is the girl the Wicked Witch of the West?

What if he just called her a bitch? Would that verbal assault have been sufficient justification for her to throw the rock?

What if he'd hit her with the balloon unaware of the consequences, in much the same way that we're saying she threw the rock unaware of the consequences?

By absolving her of a measure of responsiblity (because she was "retaliating" in some fashion), you are in essence making a water balloon a more dangerous weapon than a jagged rock.

[Lars39]

26. Then they're even-steven, with both learning a lesson.

By not charging him with assault, the police absolved him of responsibility for his actions. Why? The whole situation stinks.

[Orrex]

32. That's the wrong way to address it, IMO

They're not even-steven, because she wasn't injured, and he was.

Speculation about psychological harm (a la hydroballoonophobia) isn't relevant here until it's borne out by evidence of actual harm to the girl. Meanwhile, the boy has stitches resulting from the assault.

By the logic of "they both committed assault," one could as readily justify shooting a person who blew smoke in your face. That's a kind of bogus, absolutist logic that seems to me inconsistent with reality and common sense.

[Lars39]

40. She was charged with assault and he wasn't .

She was kept in juvenile hall for 5 days. From what I remember of the original article, even his family didn't want her arrested.

[SteppingRazor]

27. I had a friend who was arrested for assault w/ a deadly weapon..

after throwing a water balloon. The only difference was, he threw it at a cop car.

As for the girl, I think intent is important. I don't think she intended to cause permanent injury or death. She was just thjrowing what she had on hand -- to her, it was probably just the same as throwing a water balloon. I don't think this girl should be charged with anything, if that actually fits the circumstances of the case.

[Orrex]

29. Holy Moley!

I had a friend who was arrested for assault w/ a deadly weapon after throwing a water balloon. The only difference was, he threw it at a cop car.

Now that's ridiculous. A deadly weapon? What was in it?

Maybe we'll hear of a rash of bank robberies executed by balloon-wielding thugs?

[tsuki]

96. I thought the Preznit approved of retaliation. Isn't that why we are

in Iraq?

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. You think a balloon is an assault weapon?

LOL

I guess you never had any water balloon fights as a kid.

[Mairead]

60. It's about the definition of felony assault, as you'd know if you read

the whole subthread: hitting someone with anything other than one's hand is felony assault in that jurisdiction. A water balloon is not one's hand.

[hfojvt]

64. they call it a "water balloon fight"

but they do not say if the girl was a willing participant. Although it is possible she was. Some people get too competetive. I had a hard time explaining to my brother's friend that you do not throw the ball at somebody in a game of softball to get them out.

However, if you can be charged with assault for spitting on somebody, then certainly throwing a water balloon qualifies as assault, unless it was a voluntary game.

[proud2BlibKansan]

69. Lots of info here

http://www.freemaribel.com

[Mairead]

36. In a way, yes, he was asking for it. He wanted attention from her.

Why, what did YOU think was the reason, if not a desire to dominate her and get her to pay attention to him?

[Orrex]

46. Why is it "dominating" rather than "playing?"

I suspet that he threw it at her because they're kids and they're friends and because water balloon-throwing is a game that kids play together without engaging in weirdo neo-Freudian psychosexual dominance roleplaying.

Or am I missing something?

Not everything is a dominance PoMo power structure.

[Mairead]

52. It's a dominance game because it's one-sided.

He didn't fill a dozen balloons with water, give her half of them, and say 'let's throw them at each other'. He had and kept all the balloons. The attraction of the game, for him, was that she would not be able to retaliate; that he would dominate her.

[Lars39]

54. It wasn't just him, he was one among a little group.

[Mairead]

63. Right, but still one-sided -- they had all the 'weapons'

[Orrex]

56. You've over-reading, I think

We have no indication of the circumstances outside of the balloon and the rock. What do you mean by "all the balloons?" The article reported only one, unless I missed it.

By the sub/dom logic, we must accept that she was attempting to dominate him, since she brought much greater firepower to bear upon him. She didn't give him a bucket of rocks and say "let's throw them at each other."

[Lars39]

You need to go google and look at some of the earlier AP article.

[Julius Civitatus]

59. Boys threw balloons and STONES at Maribel

There were a small bunch of boys throwing water balloons, STONES and STICKS at Maribel and her brother. She fought back and hit a boy in the forehead.

It's good to check all sides to the story:

http://www.freemaribel.com

[Orrex]

73. Sorry, that site offers only one side

Where's the site advocating the boy's position?

I can't find anything on that site indicating that the boys threw stones and sticks--if I'm just missing it, please post a snippet, and I'll check it out.

on edit: Whoops! I just found it. Thanks, Seabiscuit.

Beyond that, it's disingenuous to describe her actions as self-defense. She was being hit by water balloons and retaliated by throwing a comparatively heavy and jagged rock.

If someone in the office swats me on the shoulder with a manilla folder, am I justified in cutting his throat?

By the way--I have no metric beyond a "gut feeling" to tell me what a suitable punishment of the girl would be, but 5 days jailtime and 30 days house arrest sure sounds like more than enough to me...

[Mairead]

66. "we must accept that she was attempting to dominate him"

Yes, quite right. But since, as far as we know, the boys were the ones who started up, her dominance goal seems to have been to get them to stop and let her alone.

Not completely unlike the situation in Iraq, when you think about it: the US/UK started up with a goal of domination and control, while the Iraqis responded with the goal of getting them to stop and go away.

[Orrex]

Even if true, that still doesn't excuse her actions

If someone feels that he or she is being "dominated" against his or her will, then hitting someone with a rock is not a suitable response.

That knucklehead in the SUV "dominated" me by cutting in front of me in traffic. Can I shoot his tires and run him off the road?

[Mairead]

76. To the extent that she should never have been charged, it does

She's a kid! When you try to draw a comparison between her actions and yours, I have to wonder why you think that's appropriate. Are YOU an 11-y.o.?

[Orrex]

79. Am not am not am not!

I'm trying to illustrate that a retaliation via excessive force is not justified whether you're a soaked 11-year-old girl or an unelected, over-privileged President with daddy issues.

The boy should be disciplined to a degree suitable to his balloon-throwing (bearing in mind the non-injury to the girl).

The girl should be disciplined to a degree suitable to her rock-throwing (bearing in mind the significant injury to the boy).

[Mairead]

81. You still fail to grasp the essential fact: she's a KID

And the boy did not receive a 'significant injury' -- he was stitched up and sent home. No hospitalisation, no concussion, no lasting harm, minor scarring: trivial injury.

[Orrex]

82. And she wasn't injured at all

That's the essential fact. "Could have been injured" and "she felt dominated" are lovely speculations, but they're irrelevant and certainly no justification for her actions.

And I would think that, to a child, stitches and a blow to the head are a significant injury.

[Mairead]

89. " I would think that, to a child, stitches and a blow to the head

are a significant injury."

Oh for pete's sake! I was a tomboy and have plenty scars from stitched-up wounds. And that's without having had any interest in sport. Bike crashes, falling out of trees, falling off small cliffs, getting spiked by sharp objects, fights...they're all part of being a kid.

If it doesn't require hospitalisation, it's trivial.

[Orrex]

92. If she was "assaulted" by a water balloon, then his injury is "significant

You can quibble about the details all you want. She assaulted him with a weapon when other options were available to her. He was injured, she was not.

I don't care if you had scrapes and bruises as a kid--so did I. Luckily, that's not the point. The point is that she deliberately threw a jagged rock at him and cut his forehead with it.

One can object that he threw rocks first, but he didn't injure her with them, and that's central. If we can condemn the boy on the basis of an injury that might have been, then we can equally condemn the girl for an injury that might easily have been worse.

[Eloriel]

98. Then WHAT THE FUCK IS A SUITABLE RESPONSE???

I've read this thread up to this point and I'm thoroughly fed up. You sure are quick -- and determined -- to denounce this LITTLE GIRL for defending herself at all. There's no indication whatsoever that she wanted to INJURE anyone, but since you're so fucking damn sure she's so bad, just what IS a "suitable response" to you in this situation?

I'm sick of people defending bullies, especially over the weaker and more vulnerable people who dare fight back -- and that's what these "little boys" were, BULLIES.

AFAIC the kid who was injured got exactly what he deserved. Maybe he'll think twice about bullying any little girls hereafter. Or maybe he'll grow up and spend time on a discussion forum like DU defending other bullies.

Edited: Here's a snippet that just makes me all warm and fuzzy sympathetic to the little bully:

Maribel attends school with Elijah, and says she's been taunted by him in the past.


Edited again: Oh, man. You are REALLY on the wrong side of this debate -- the police state side of this debate. http://www.freemaribel.com/article.php?lc=en#Rebuttal

[Orrex]

135. How about these suitable responses?

Leave the scene
Speak to the boy
Speak to some adult on the scene
Speak to her parents
Speak to his parents
Speak to a police officer
Throw a water balloon at him
Throw several water balloons at him
Spray him with a hose
Ignore him

That's just for starters. I'm sure that others here can contribute additional non-violent responses.

I do not endorse the "eye for an eye" of Deuteronomy, or even a "cut forehead for a minor soaking" brutality. It strikes me as absurd and horrifying that some here assert that the boy had it coming. He may be a bully--he may even be an asshole--but does that justify violent physical assault, even if that assault is accidental?

I am accused of embracing a police state, while my accusers are advocating a suit-yourself militaristic anarchy. Very nice.

The mistake here is in thinking that everyone who isn't praising the girl's heroism is saying that she should be executed by firing squad. Even if she didn't mean to injure the boy, she needs to learn that her actions have consequences. Throwing a rock at someone's head has the consequence of subjecting the thrower to criminal charges; now she has learned this.

I'm baffled why so many here are requiring the boy to be aware of and responsible for the consequences of his actions, while the girl is given carte blanche because "she's defending herself." Why is this? Is it because she's "just a girl" and therefore has a lesser requirement of personal responsibility than the boy has?

[Iris]

122. apples and oranges

11 year olds do not drive cars - and this is one reason why.

Children simply are not developmentally able to think things through like adults are. That's why they have parents.

If you think locking a child away is the answer, I beg you to listen to the the report on the link I've posted in this thread. It will give you an idea of what happens to children in the penal system who have been tried as adults - serious reprecussions for the rest of their lives for often minor discrepancies especially compared to the crimes of the adults they are actually locked up with.

[proud2BlibKansan]

67. But he was doing it 'often'

Sounds a bit like inuendo to me.

All one has to do is read the site that is posted here and a very complete picture of this story is presented.

Instead, we have folks misrepresenting facts and posting inuendo that this boy 'often' assaulted this girl. sheesh

[Mairead]

77. Did you see the word 'guess'? What do you suppose it means? (nt)

[atreides1]

10. That is different

The boy required stitches and luckily nothing more. A suitable response would be counseling not confinement.

I'll make a bet that if the girl was white and lived in a well to do neighborhood, the police would have arrested the Asian boy for assault for throwing a water ballon.

Just my take on the story so far.

[Orrex]

33. Good point

And if it had been a "black on black" crime or had occurred somewhere in The Projects, we probably wouldn't have heard about it at all.

[wrlwnd]

70. And I'd bet that if the boy had thrown the rock...

and the girl needed stitches, and the boy was charged with assault, that this would not even be news.

[sui generis]

12. if the boy had died it would have been

very sad indeed for everybody. I'm very glad it did not happen, but no law made by adults for adults is going to keep a kid under duress from picking up a rock and throwing it.

Children are not allowed to drive cars or vote or serve in the army or even have sex not because they can't (for the most part) but because they lack judgement and experience. There is nothing in that girl's experience that would have suggested that throwing whatever was at hand at someone who annoys you would result in their death.

That's the issue - we want an adult law practiced by adults exercising adult judgement to apply to a child. That's where I draw the line as a liberal. There are a hundred other things to do before charging that girl with that kind of a felony in this case, regardless of the outcome.

If she had accidentally killed him, there are doubtless some people who think she should have been tried as an adult.

[Orrex]

19. Not saying she should be tried as an adult, but

We need a better guideline than "kids will be kids."

I'll tell you this much--I knew damn well by age 11 that throwing a heavy rock at someone's head could result in that person's death. If the girl didn't know it, then it's a failure of those responsible for her upbringing. Should they be held responsible for her actions?

Even the answer "it would have been sad for everybody" (given several times in this thread) is inadequate, IMO.

Before anyone flames me, let me say that I do not think that the girl should be tried as an adult or jailed until adulthood. However, I think that our system of criminal justice is simply inadequate to deal with this kind of incident.

HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE FOLLOWS
What if she had weighed the consequences of a thrown rock (to the best of her ability) and accepted the likelihood that it might readily have killed or debilitated the boy, yet she still chose to throw it? From my own experience I believe that a child of 11 is generally capable of that level of reasoning. Do we still dismiss it as the innocent consequences of youth?

[sui generis]

35. was she trying to hit him?

was she just throwing in his general direction? Maybe she was trying to hit him in the arm, which would not have been "deadly". Anyway she did not know that a rock could have cause a subdural hematoma any more than he could not know that a water balloon could have blinded her into stumbling out into oncoming traffic. . .

We are just making the assumption that she was an ace pitcher . . .

I disagree with you - the only inadequate thing here is parenting. The law has no place here unless it also tries the parents whose responsibility it is to instill some form of adult judgement over the course of 18 years in their children.

It would have been sad. Sometimes avoidable tragedies happen. Punishing someone, anyone, every time an avoidable tragedy happens is not always the most effective way to keep those events from repeating themselves later with someone new, most particularly in the case of children.

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. She should be referred for counseling

and anger management training. Hopefully, this is what the juvenile court will recommend.

[genieroze]

97. I agree with you and have said the same and I'm being slammed for it.

Violence is wrong and if she was being assaulted first she should have gotten a adult. I don't feel she should be charged with a felony because that's just plain stupid. A felony, at least in my state, needs to go before a grand jury. I can't imagine a grand jury indicting a 11 year old for a rock. As far as the cops manhandling the child that should be taken up with the police chief.

[Lars39]

4. Why wasn't the boy charged with assault?

Sounds like self-defense to me.
From what I remember from the very first article, this was not a 2-way
water-balloon fight, where the girl was participating by throwing water balloons back.

[AValdoux]

7. What did the girls parents say?

I wonder if the actions after the incident by the girl and her parents had something to do with this. Maybe she showed no remorse and her parents backed her actions.

I always taught my kids when they were old enough to understand (7 or 8) that hitting someone is assault and adults go to jail for it.


AValdoux

[Lars39]

11. So the water-balloon thrower should be charged, too.

It's assault. :shrug:

[Orrex]

28. You can't readily conclude that from the information in the article

It doesn't indicate whether the two were engaged in a consensual water balloon fight--only that he pelted her with a balloon, and she gashed his forehead with a rock.

And you haven't addressed the issue of equivalency. If he'd "assaulted" her with a wet willy, would she have been "justified" in stabbing him with a 10-inch butcher's knife?

[Lars39]

34. He threw a water balloon, THEN she threw something back.

[Orrex]

38. Could you please put an (nt) in your posts, if they're only subject lines?

Are you saying that she was fully justified, then? What if she'd knocked him down and cut off his hands with a chainsaw?

After all, she would only have been responding to the grievous assault upon her person, as any right-thinking person would do.

[Lars39]

42. No, I won't.

[Orrex]

43. If, as I've suspected, empty posts are the extent of your contribution,

Then I have no further need to read them.

Thanks for saving me the time.

[Lars39]

47. What a sweetheart!

[0007]

100. Are you the new DU police?

[Seabiscuit]

39. Sure, it's an assault. But not with a deadly weapon. Huge difference.

And throwing a rock in response to someone throwing a water baloon at you wouldn't be considered "self defense" in any court of law. Use of deadly force in response to use of harmless force is never allowed by law and never deemed self defense.

It seems people are most upset that it was an eleven year old girl who threw the rock, and a few are upset that it was an eleven year old non-white girl.

Her age and apparent lack of appreciation for the consequences of her actions will certainly be raised as defenses in court.

But the law can't simply ignore something like this. She committed a crime.

How would you feel if you were the parent of the boy who was seriously inured by that rock? Would you like to see the girl who threw it get nothing more than counseling?

If I were such a parent, I don't think I'd care so much about what the D.A. did or didn't do about it as I would that the parents of the girl paid the medical bills for my son's injuries. Those parents bear at least this responsibility for their daughter's actions.

[Lars39]

44. Sorry, being hit with a water balloon is assault.

Try it out and see what happens.

[Seabiscuit]

49. I've been hit with water baloons. You miss my point.

It's not an assault *with a deadly weapon". It may sting slightly, but it's not going to cause a gash in my body requiring stiches. Therefore it's not a felony by law. It's at most a misdemeanor. Huge difference.

You may not want to acknowledge this distinction, but the law created this distinction for good reason.

[Lars39]

53. I went back and looked up the original AP article.

It was a group of boys throwing water balloons at her.
Also reports that they were throwing sticks and rocks.

[proud2BlibKansan]

68. Amazing what one discovers when a little

reading takes place. :)

[Lars39]

71. Yes, makes it look even more like self-defense. :-)

[proud2BlibKansan]

72. You know what we should be talking about in this thread?

Instead of nitpicking over which child was right and which was wrong, we need to be talking about the way the cops and the city of Fresno handled this case. Some of this is just outrageous. Here are just a few tidbits I found from her attorney's statement:


Remember, the rock in question was brought to the home of Maribel's cousin by the boys and thrown at her and her siblings first. When the incident occurred the rest of the "gang" fled, evidence that they knew what they were doing was wrong! Also the police made no efforts to investigate the exisstance(sic) of these boys

Maribel, who speaks limited English, spent five days in juvenile hall with just one half-hour visit from her parents. She then spent about 30 days under house arrest, forced to wear a GPS ankle bracelet to monitor her whereabouts.

It was the decision of the Police officer to arrest Maribel, having full knowledge that it was a Friday afternoon and that she would thus spent 5 to 6 days in custody before going to court. It is obvious from Officer Green's report that he had no intention or proper training to deal with children. According to his report when he is at the scene he notes the "the suspect's mother walked up and right behind her was Maribel Cuevas, the suspect. I placed her into hand cuffs" without speaking to her, without attempting to explain anything to her. Apparently this insensitive action of Officer Green terrified young Maribel, and she became very upset, not knowing what was going on. She was then thrown to the ground (already in cuffs) and the mighty Officer "was able to get Cuevas in the back of the patrol vehicle". Again prior to even speaking with this child, or waiting for an interpreter to speak with her. Arrest, manhandle, then question.

http://www.freemaribel.com/article.php?lc=en

[Seabiscuit]

113. Do you have a link to it? The one I read said nothing about the boys

throwing sticks and rocks. The one I read was the link provided by the person starting this thread.

This would change the facts of the case, but not the law.

[Sparkman]

120. The police sent me photo's of the rock, the wound & the cops' wrist "cut".

The rock was 4" x 3".
The boy's cut was about 1.5", above the eyebrow.
The cop's wrists have VERY SUPERFICIAL SCUFFs.
They were IN HER MARIBELS' FRONT YARD, SHE WAS BABYSITTING & HAD A SMALL CHILD IN HER LAP, SHE ASKED THEM TO LEAVE!
The cop should have the shit kicked out of him for placing manicle on her while on the ground, face down, with his KNEE IN MERIBEL'S BACK.

What the cop did, if in my viewing, would result in a signed complaint, and with promise to testify to police brutality and failure to keep the peace by escalating over zealous treatment of
AN 11 YEAR OLD GIRL.
<edit> I'll email the police photos to anyone who wants them, and the police didn't show Maribel's handcuffed wrist injuries.

[proud2BlibKansan]

45. A water balloon is not even in the same category

as a rock. How many people have died or even been seriously injured after being hit by a water balloon?

If he is charged with assault, then they should upgrade the girl's charges to assault with a deadly weapon.

[carnie_sf]

9. OMG

My brother and I used to drill rocks at each other at least once a month

[jojo54]

13. It's get more insane with each passing day that the fundies

get more power. There's this, the 5 yr old girl handcuffed at the FL school, and the girl arrested for eating a french fry on the subway...

WTF??? Seems to me that the laws' arm has grown just a little to long for it's own good.

[Strawman]

14. She'd better hope she doesn't get Judge Roberts

He'd uphold a death sentence on a kid for eating a french fry on the subway.

[noonwitch]

15. It is felonious assualt to hit someone with an object other than your hand

I'm not saying that charging an 11 year old and locking her up is the best way to handle this, but it is felonious assualt. If she was 16, I don't think anyone would be feeling overly sympathetic.

The kid needs a pyschological evaluation to determine what her needs are, and to receive therapy. She does need to have some consequences, because she injured the other kid.

[sui generis]

18. well then the waterballoon flinging lad was engaging in felonious assault

but is it assault if you are using something other than your hand to defend yourself?

Anyway, all forms of rough and tumble play among children can be considered "assault" if we push the issue, including impromptu games of dodgeball, snap the whip, smear the queer (sigh, yes), cowboys & injuns, cops & robbers, and whatever other goodies kids play when they're in a pack.

The point is that adult rules for adults are out of place - and both children need better parenting.

And the Fresno police department needs better leadership. Is there something in the drinking water in Fresno that makes them so nutso? Starting to wonder. . .

[bluedonkey]

23. If she was sixteen

you could expect her to have more sense,but an eleven year old...?
I think this is taking it too far.

[TahitiNut]

17. How can we ever deal with felonies involving children?

For some bizarre reason, we overlook and ignore actions by children or against children which, if involving only adults, would be regarded as felonies.

"Spanking." Do that to an adult and it's called "assault and battery."
Throwing stones. If an adult did that, it'd be a felony - assault with a deady weapon.
Playground fisticuffs. Even outside a bar, it's assault and battery.

Just how the hell are we to raise children to be responsible adults if we zealously prohibit them from engaging in some behaviors that adults can engage in freely (intercourse, smoking, drinking, etc.) and ignore other behaviors which, when they're adults, are felonious?

On top of this, we seem to think it's OK to fill kids heads with outright LIES (Santa Claus, the stork, etc.) and indoctrinate them with the Wonders of Monarchies (Kings, Queens, Princes, Princesses are all happy and beautiful) and misogyny (girls cook, boys shoot).

We're fucking schizophrenic!!

[sui generis]

20. still this is going to court

where there will be a legal "self defense" test, arguments for and against, an evaluation by jury or hearing, etc.

Children throwing things at each other aren't going to stop and try to figure out which one is the technical assailant, and which one is engaging in self defense. If we need a court and adults to split the hairs on this then it certainly shouldn't apply in general terms to children.

Better parenting - a PSA by the police, whatever, ANYTHING is more effective at keeping it from happening again than just blindly enforcing the law.

[Sequoia]

21. The boys threw rocks/stones also.

But Mayor "Bubba Skinner"thinks the cops were right to arrest her.

[Orrex]

25. Did I miss that in the article?

I didn't see that part--only that he "pelted her with a water balloon."

[salib]

24. Ok, let's really question the assumptions here

Why is reward and punishment the core, end-all, and be-all of our "Justice System"? I.e., why is it that the immediate reaction to "she hurt me" is "she will be PUNISHED", i.e., "she will be hurt". How Judeo-Christian-Islam can you get?

Do we really want to teach our kids that it is "and eye for an eye", "tit for tat"? Even if it is society or "authorities" that do the "tat"-ing?

Come on! We are better than that as liberals, aren't we?

[Xithras]

50. Even liberals believe in punishing the violent.

She caused grievous bodily harm to another. That is an affront to society and must be corrected.

[Julius Civitatus]

55. She's a child arrested for a schoolyard-type fight!

What's so reasonable about this? It's an abuse of power and an insane way to deal with the matter. These were kids fighting kids!

And by the way, the boys threw water balloons and STONES to Maribel and her brother. She replied back and hit a boy in the forehead.

Now apparently that's grounds for the Fresno PD to send 6 police units and a helicopter after the girl. Then arrest her, handcuff her and throw her in jail for 5 days.

Have we lost our sense of measure?

For more on this mind-bending case, check out: http://www.freemaribel.com

[Julius Civitatus]

30. The problem is that she is a BROWN-SKINNED MEXICAN girl

Years ago, this would have been deemed "kids being kids." Now they would try a child as an adult for something like this. When I look back at my childhood I couldn't count the times we hit each other, threw things, scrapped knees, pushed, kicked... damn! It's kids being kids!!! Are we completely losing our minds?

The difference here is that Maribel (short for Maria Isabel) Cuevas is a brown-skinned Mexican girl. If she was white, I bet $20 none of this would have happened.

This is in the middle of an anti-immigrant epidemic in the South-West, where every loony "patriot" can get his gun and got "guard the border" against dark-skinned Mexican crossing over.

I repeat: if the girl was blonde and was called "Elizabeth Chambers" * instead of "Isabel Cuevas," this would have been resolved by talking to her parents.

:grr:

(* close translation)

[Julius Civitatus]

48. There is a "Free Maribel" website already

Check it out:

http://www.freemaribel.com

It provides a lot of information on the case.

Do you know that upon receiveing info on the case, the Fresno PD sent 6 police units and a helicopter to detain Maribel?

Brown-skinned girl on the lose! Sent all units!!!

Disgraceful. Absolutely disgraceful.

:wow:

Also, read the specifics on how the officer arrested and handcuffed the 11-year old girl. It's heartbreaking.

[Eloriel]

112. It IS heartbreaking -- and more

It's infuriating, maddening, sickening, and even more than that. What Maribel experienced is a crime, pure and simple, but what's going on in this thread is almost as bad. I'm ashamed of DU today (alas, not for the first time). This thread has some of the worst sexist and racist shit in it that I've seen. According to some here, Maribel is NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO DEFEND herself against HER attackers -- her male betters, that is. SHE is the criminal.

Talk about blaming the victim.

[oldcoot]

129. Unfortunately, you are probably right

I am sure that similar cases of bullying and assault occur everyday in Fresno schools. I wonder how often the police are even called in these cases. When they are called, I wonder if they consistently arrest those children for assault or if poor Maribel is an exception.

[mixedview]

130. Disagree. IIRC, boy is a minority also. There is only social outrage

in this case because she is girl, IMO, and deep down society doesn't think girls should be punished - most of the time females recieve much lighter sentences for similar crimes - this time being an exception to the rule.

If a boy had done this everyone would be saying "lock up the little punk".

I'm not sure about the the crime she's being charged with - it probably is unreasonable - and a kid should never be tried as an adult.

But I am very concerned with the inequality of our criminal justice system with regard to gender, and with the unequal social outrage - almost that boys deserve to punished, tortured and even raped in prison to "beat the evil out of them" - the sentiment that boys/men are inherently evil and underserving of compassion/human rights.

[SemperEadem]

31. If it was the other way around

and it was the boy who beaned the girl with the rock, he'd get a medal, a commendation and be made grand marshall in the freepervill parade.

[JitterbugPerfume]

51. Long ago

my son jumped out of a tree onto his sister

broke her arm


Boy did HE ever get it

This girl needs to "get it" too

and the boy needs to learn that for every action there is an equal(and sometimes UN-Equal) and opposite reaction

Better parenting is called for in this case

[Lars39]

57. When she realized what she had done, she ran to get his parents.

She's spent 5 days in juvenile hall, only seeing her parents for about 30 minutes, and also been under house arrest for 30 days.
I've known DUI's to get less time than this girl.

[Eloriel]

106. You would do well to read the damn AP article

And any of the others listed here: http://www.freemaribel.com/

And I'll ask you the same thing I asked the other little-girl-hating defender of bullies: Just what would YOU have advised her to do in the exact situation she was in?????

[JitterbugPerfume]

58. Incidentally what Andy "got"

was a lecture from his mom (single parent BTW)

an apology to his sister (a sincere tearful one)

Grounding

and a thump on the head from his mom

it worked I guess because he is now a productive citizen

[Lars39]

65. I think that's probably what would have occured in this situation

if things hadn't been blown out of proportion. :(

[Eloriel]

107. Oh, well in that case, Maribel is WAY AHEAD OF YOU and your Andy

She was tearful and apologetic, and running to get HIS parents, right away. She was tearful and apologetic for most of her 5-day incarceration, too, I'll bet. And not eating or sleeping well.

WAS THAT FUCKING ENOUGH OF A THUMP ON THE HEAD FOR YOU????????

My prayer is that the "productive citizen" part of this lirttle 11-year old BROWN GIRL hasn't been completely snuffed out after this heinous experience.

I'll say it again: read the damn article.

[Xithras]

62. As I said in the other thread, she should be punished.

Not tried as an adult, but punished just the same. And yes, that does mean charging her so that a legal precedent can be established to allow easier incarceration later if this kind of behavior becomes a pattern.

In the Central Valley, where average temperatures can hover over 100 degrees for weeks at a time during the summer, water balloons are a staple among the under-12 set. They throw them at each other, they throw them at themselves, I've even had them throw balloons at my CAR as I drove past. Kids throwing water balloons is pretty typical behavior when you live in a hot, dry environment like this one, and it's only natural that some of them are going to do innappropriate things with them. That's what kids do.

In this case, these kids saw another kid outside on a hot day and decided to throw their water balloons at her. Was it a nice thing to do? Probably not, but it certainly didn't warrant picking up a two pound stone and cracking another kids head open with it. That's the George Bush "Overreact and bomb them to hell" response to the problem. She obviously knew where the kid lived, and by all reports she was right in front of her own home when this occurred. She had PLENTY of other ways to stop this without resorting to violence. She chose the violent route, so society has a duty to intervene.

BTW, to settle the issue of whether the rock is dangerous: A two pound rock accelerating for just three feet will have an impact force of about 10 joules. I don't know how strong human bones are, but I do know that a typical pine board can be broken with 9 joules of force. Translated into english, she hit him with enough energy to shatter a fenceboard. That's certainly enough energy to deeply gouge flesh, permanently remove teeth, eyes, or head appendages, and it's probably enough to fracture the skull at the temple, cheek, or browridge.

[Karmakaze]

74. Bollocks..

First of all read more details on the case - this was a response to an assault on an eleven year old girl. Even ADULTS are given leeway when it comes to responding to assualt, and an eleven year old is not likely to be better able to judge right from wrong in the heat of the moment than an adult - just look at the debate on this thread where no one is being physically attacked and we are all adults, but still there is a disagreement on whether it was justifiable or not.

Yet you expect an eleven year old to figure it out quicker, and under pressure, than we can?

Secondly, if you think an eleven year old girl could throw a rock hard enough to break a fenceboard, I suspect you have spent too long with numbers and not long enough with actual kids playing.

I suspect I would find it difficult to break a fenceboard with a thrown rock and I have a hell of a lot of a size advantage over this girl.

[Xithras]

83. I'm the father of an 11 year old girl.

Fenceboards aren't all that hard to break (9 joules isn't all that much energy), and neither are bones and teeth. My daughter has broken my back fence just by kicking her soccer ball into it...I have no doubt she could do the same with a deliberately hurled two pound stone.

[Eloriel]

114. Man, I'm sure glad YOU'Re not MY father --

I've never thought of mine as any prize, but he was a lot smarter, kinder, more compassionate AND, I now realize for perhaps the first time, a lot wiser than you.

ANY father who wouldn't fold his 11-year old daughter in his arms and comfort her to the exclusion of absolutely everything else in this situation is not even worthy of being a father, IMO. This little girl was victimized at least twice -- actually, ONGOING victimization by the bully, and horrendous victimization at the hands of the police state and racist cops and an overly zealous "justice" system. No way in hell she deserves even a scintilla of demonization here at DU -- nor calls for her punishment. She's BEEN punished, mostly[/i, as I see it, for being female and brown.

[Xithras]

131. What the heck are you talking about?

How I'd treat my daughter, and how society should treat violent juvenile offenders, are two completely different subjects.

For what it's worth, if a boy were chucking rocks at my daughter, I'd chase the little bastid down, tie his @55 up, and turn him over to the police myself.

That said, her response was wholly inappropriate. Physical violence is only acceptable when you are defending your life, the life of someone else, or if you have no other option. This girl had options, and chose not to use them. She CHOSE the violent response. She could have run inside for assistance. She could have screamed for help. She could have simply evaded the kids. But instead she willingly joined the violence by picking up a weapon and striking back when it wasn't needed. That kind of antisocial behavior is what our juvenile criminal justice system is designed to deal with.

And get off the female and brown BS. We're talking Fresno, where half the population is "brown", half the police are "brown", and the PD has to justify practically every action they take with their citizens oversight committee...which contains numerous "brown" people. She was arrested because she caused serious physical injury to another person. We're not talking about a theoretical "danger" here...she picked up a potentially lethal weapon and struck another person in the head with it, cleaving his head open to the skull. Her arrest was a perfectly legitimate action on the part of the police. Being a minor does NOT exempt you from the laws of this state and country.

I only have one problem with this whole scenario, and that's the fact that the boy wasn't arrested as well for throwing rocks at her.

[proud2BlibKansan]

75. Read the links

The boy and his friends threw rocks as well as water balloons at her. She threw one of the rocks back and it hit this boy in the head. So it was more than a simple water balloon fight.

[Xithras]

80. That's a different situation than the one presented thus far.

Even so, you legally can only use enough force defending yourself to stop an assault. This is well established legal precedent and applies to kids just as it does to adults.

The fact still remains that she had the option of running away and getting a parent or calling the police. She chose to stand and fight, and should have to face the consequences for that. The only difference the boys rock throwing makes is that I now agree that he should also be charged.

[proud2BlibKansan]

84. And I will say again

the discussion here should be about the way this little girl is being treated by the criminal justice system, and the way the cops manhandled her. Whether or not she was acting in self-defense is insignificent, IMO.

[Fleshdancer]

87. he threw rocks and balloons at her and her younger sisters

The CNN article posted above never really gave her side of the story like some other articles I've read on it.

[Iris]

78. Trying and sentencing children as adults . . .

I started a thread on this yesterday. It is one of the horrors of our time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4246526&mesg_id=4246526

[Eloriel]

115. I agree. I absolutely do not understand this war on our children

I really don't. Thanks for the link. If I can ever tear myself away from this dog's breakfast of a discussion, I'll check it out. :evilgrin:

[Iris]

116. I'll admit, I am sometimes so horrified by things I hear in the news,

a first reaction is lock 'em up and throw away the key, but as this country becomes more punitive and regressive, I find myself becoming more forgiving and compassionate.

At least that's something, I guess.

[genieroze]

85. I think they went to far with the felony charge but suppose she hit the

kid in the eye and blinded him? Can't they get her with simple assault which is a misdemeanor?

[Mairead]

91. Well, since you want to charge her based on 'suppose', let's suppose

the cop had broken her neck subduing her. Shall we charge him now? Suppose the boy, Vang, and thrown a knife and killed her little brother. Shall we put him away for life? Suppose Vang had set fire to her house, instead. Arson charges?

As I hope these examples show, 'suppose' is not a legitimate basis for assessing behavior.

[genieroze]

95. Let's suppose she didn't throw a rock. Oops, but she did.

I just said she should only be charged with simple assault because she didn't seriously hurt the kid and the weapon was a rock. By what you are saying we should not charge people with who shoot someone if they didn't kill them. The intent is there. Even at eleven you have to know if you throw a rock at someone's head it going to cause damage.

[Eloriel]

117. She's an 11-year old CHILD, let's not charge her with anything

Did you read about her behavior even before the cops showed up? She was aghast at the injury, apologetic and went to his parents house to get them. This is not a child who needed to be taught a lesson or even for whom MORE punishment than the full realization of what she had unintentionally done was necessary.

Even at eleven you have to know if you throw a rock at someone's head it going to cause damage.

Oh, get real. I'm 57 and now and then *I* do things for which I'm not prepared for the outcome -- things which suprise me, things which cause damage I hadn't expected, things which were just plain stupid, things with less damaging but still unintended consequences.

What a bloodthirstly lot we've got here at DU. It's unfreakin' believable to me, and makes me wanna :puke: literally.

[genieroze]

136. Who called the cops, huh?

Most cops don't just drive around looking for kids to arrest. (Well, they do in my town but they are morons) Who tried to press charges? In my law happy state of NJ, cops are required to press charges if they are called for assault. My concern was the felony charge when it could be taken to a juvie intake committee which is just a legal intervention committee made up of citizens. They would sit ALL the kids down and have a conference. Then they might decide to have the kids just write a letter of apology. No judge, no probation, no record. I have a police scanner and you would not believe the 911 happy nuts. They call for things like kids playing hopscotch on the sidewalk. People really need to think before they dial.

[tsuki]

103. What if the boy had hit her in the eye with a stone or stick?

[Fleshdancer]

86. This article gives additional information:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/08/02/BAG2EE1BNU1.DTL

Maribel says she was defending herself against Elijah and other boys who had thrown rocks and water balloons at her and some of her younger siblings while they were playing behind the low chain-link fence of a relative's front yard in their largely minority neighborhood.

"She's a good girl. She's never been in trouble,'' said Martin Cuevas, father of the girl. "We are worrying what is going to happen,'' the father of six said in Spanish in a telephone interview in which he said he was surrounded by his children, ages 12, 11, 9, 6, 4 and 1.

[VOX]

88. Guess I'd better turn myself in for conking my brother with a rock...

back when I was 10 years old. Of course, he was throwing rocks at me, too...can I plea self-defense? And I guess my brother ought to turn himself in for coldcocking the neighbor's kid with the butt end of a metal air-rifle, splitting open the kid's head, which required several stitches.

And then I'd better track down my next-door neighbor who, while roughhousing with me, spun me around by my ankles and let go, breaking my left wrist when I was 9.

Since my mom passed away a couple of years ago, I think I'm finally free of the potential paycheck garnishing I could have endured as payback for all the times I broke her windows with rocks, baseballs, Play Dough, etc.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[samsingh]

90. if she had used a gun

it would have been called self-defense

[mtnester]

93. I agree this is a serious lesson for everyone involved

But really, felonious assault?

Put the girl in the Children's ER, with a good counselor at her side, and let her learn why this was a bad idea.

Listen, my brother pissed me off so bad one summer day long ago, that I smacked him open handed on the back where his sunburn was the worst. (it was a good, hard painful hit too!)

Later that day, he snuck up on me and stabbed my arm with the only weapon he was able to find, a rusty nail, as retribution. Felonious assault? It was a penetrating wound, and I could have gotten lockjaw dang it! We were 7 and 6.

Tetanus shots all around, no charges filed, we laugh about it now. AM I belittling how the rock incident could have turned out? No...but it sounds to me like bad judgment on the part of the girl.

I hope everyone comes to their senses and works this out appropriately.

[Julius Civitatus]

94. AP reports charges have been dropped at the last minute!

Cooler heads prevailed:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2005/08/03/national/a103922D27.DTL

I think what needs to be discussed here is the overreaction of the Fresno PD, frankly.

[SouthernDem2004]

101. No, they did what they are supposed to do...

The Police charged her with the statute the law dictates they charge the child with. According to the law she did commit a felony and in that state a child of that age can be charged with a felony. It is up to the DA to decide if it should be changed to a lesser charge. People just over reacted as usual because they do not know how their legal system actual works.

Peace

[tsuki]

104. Why didn't they charge him. He threw stones and sticks. Having

poor aim is a justifiable defense? He would have hit her if he could have. Isn't that assault?

[SouthernDem2004]

108. Basicly yes but...

they were water ballons. Intent comes into play....

[tsuki]

109. And sticks and stones.

[SouthernDem2004]

111. Huh?

[Eloriel]

118. Yes -- HE threw STONES too. Read the damn article. n/t

[SouthernDem2004]

123. I did. Maybe you should. It states no such thing.

[tsuki]

119. From the LA Times

Elijah's teacher told a defense investigator that the 8-year-old was a good student, who sometimes had difficulty controlling his anger, erupting at fellow students with rants in the Hmong language.

The two were in different classes and grades, but on April 29, their paths met.

Maribel was at a friend's house, playing in a gated yard with her 6-year-old brother and three younger friends. According to Maribel, Elijah and six other boys rode up on bikes and began taunting her, as Elijah had done in the past. Elijah pelted the girl with water balloons, hitting her in the head. The group also threw rocks, Maribel said.


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-maribel3aug03,0,641543.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[SouthernDem2004]

126. Sorry, but that was not the original article posted. /nt

[sui generis]

105. that's a rather vanilla version

the point is that the DA originally wanted this case and that the police did not exercise their discretion in whether or not to even charge the child with a felony to begin with, and they theoretically DO know how the legal system actually works.

Someone was out to use this case for political hay. I've seen DA's here in Dallas go to town on a single pooper scooper violation as representative of the end of western civilization; it wouldn't surprise me to see them try to get life without parole just for the notoriety and free press.

The whole affair is vexatious to the actual parties involved.

[SouthernDem2004]

110. Sorry, but the system worked the way it is designed to. /nt

[Sparkman]

125. EXCEPT for detaining for 5 days with limited parental access, with a FELON

Y ARREST which is totally inappropriate, and the brutalizing by the arresting officer of an 11 yr old, with a felony prone, knee in the back handcuffing! The cops sent me photos of the injury, the rock and some VERY SUPERFICIAL WRIST abrasions on the officers' wrists.
In my book, that's a clear case of police brutality, and if a witness, I would be inticed into jeapardizing my reputation with the local police by SIGNING OUT A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OFFICER.

[sui generis]

134. The system did not work

The system did not work except in the most superficial manner. You have a bunch of idiots in Fresno who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground (and a few here) who think that law enforcement substitutes for parenting.

Police officers in the community have a duty to the community to interact with it in a constructive way, most especially where there is a chance to bring about a beneficial change. To that end, police officers exercise professional discretion, sometimes handing out "warnings", sometimes visiting with parents and schools, and when they fail to exercise discretion particularly where it IS warranted, the system is broken, regardless of how well the issue resolves within the system.

I could write a civics essay on the topic for you if you like. Technically, this child could indeed be charged as an adult and incarcerated until adulthood, and possibly further in the current system, and one could say "the system works".

I'm afraid you will have to elaborate or stop making assertions like that.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

102. As they should have be. n/t

[0007]

99. This is total bullshit

Happy to hear that the charges have been dropped.

[Iris]

121. well put!

[smartvoter]

124. It is insane. She's 11 years old for Christ's sake. nt

[geek tragedy]

127. Her age is the ONLY relevant objection here. Throwing a 2 pound

jagged rock at someone's head, if done by an adult, is a serious, serious crime.

And yes, it's more serious than a freaking water balloon.

[mixedview]

128. let's reverse it - what if a boy did this to a girl

what the everyone be rushing to his defense ?

At this age there is little strength difference - they are both children. One could argue that it girls are much more smarter and mature than boys of the same age.

Tucker Carlson blurted out what people (no matter how liberal they claim to be) are really thinking: he believes it is indeed different for a girl, because girls need special protection from society, that little boys should not be "harassing" little girls (sheesh -they were playing with her). Isn't that a patriarchal attitude which implies girls are somehow lesser/weaker than boys, and should be kept on a (confining) pedestal, like little glass figurines ?

As a libertarian I strongly believe punishments and social outrage should be equal (if not the same) and reasonable.

[oldcoot]

132. How many boys have been arrested for the same act?

I am sure that Maribel is not the first kid to throw a rock at another kid in Fresno. I am also sure some of these rock-throwing individuals were boys. I would like to know how many of these boys were arrested and how many were just given warnings. If Fresno police officers regularly arrest eleven-year old-boys with no criminal record for throwing and hitting others with rocks, then it is fair arrest an eleven-year-girl for the same offense. However, if rock-throwing children are not usually arrested for this offense, then it is reasonable to ask why she was singled out for such treatment.

The main point that concerns me is not that a little girl got in trouble for throwing a rock but that this little girl might be being treated differently because of her ethnicity and/or social class. I agree that she should probably be punished by her parents. It might have even been appropriate for for the police to give her a warning. However, I think that local law enforcement officials may have overreacted by arresting her. I wonder if they would have made the same mistake with a child from a privileged background.

[mixedview]

133. agree and disagree

Agree: punishments should be fair. If she was singled out for any reason, then let's get angry about that.

Disagree: I don't think this is because she is a minority, or due to social class. IIRC, the boy who she smashed in the face with a rock is a minority, and of the same social class as Maribel.

[LisaL]

137. How many actually hit the target?

I think the problem is not the she threw that rock, is that she hit this boy in the head with it.