NationStates Jolt Archive

US police pursue girl over stone (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4689459.stm)

An 11-year-old girl who threw a stone at a group of boys pelting her with water balloons is being prosecuted on serious assault charges in California.
Maribel Cuevas was arrested in April in a police operation which involved three police cars and a helicopter.

She has since spent five days in detention, in which she was granted one 30 minute visit by her parents, and has spent a month under house arrest.

Her lawyer accuses the authorities of criminalising childhood behaviour.

"They're treating her like a violent parole offender," Richard Beshwate said. "It's not a felony, it's an 11-year-old acting like an 11-year-old."

The girl is due back in court at the beginning of next month.

Police say they had to investigate as the boy who was hit by the stone she threw suffered a deep gash to his head and needed hospital treatment.

He has reportedly acknowledged to officers that he started the fight in late April.

'Obligation'

The confrontation happened in a poor district of Fresno, in central California, where Maribel Cuevas lives with her Spanish-speaking family.

The girl, who speaks little English, has admitted throwing a stone at a group of boys she says were pestering her with water balloons as she walked down the street.

An ambulance was called, but arrived flanked by three police patrol vehicles. A helicopter meanwhile hovered overhead.

The 11-year-old was then read her rights twice in English before being detained.

"We responded. We determined a felony assault had taken place and the officers took the actions that were necessary," said Fresno Police Sergeant Anthony Martinez.

Another police officer told ABC News that the girl, when asked what she thought would happen if she threw the stone, replied that it would make him "bleed".


Un-freaking-believable. :mad:

US police pursue girl over stone (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4689459.stm)

An 11-year-old girl who threw a stone at a group of boys pelting her with water balloons is being prosecuted on serious assault charges in California.
Maribel Cuevas was arrested in April in a police operation which involved three police cars and a helicopter.

She has since spent five days in detention, in which she was granted one 30 minute visit by her parents, and has spent a month under house arrest.

Her lawyer accuses the authorities of criminalising childhood behaviour.

"They're treating her like a violent parole offender," Richard Beshwate said. "It's not a felony, it's an 11-year-old acting like an 11-year-old."

The girl is due back in court at the beginning of next month.

Police say they had to investigate as the boy who was hit by the stone she threw suffered a deep gash to his head and needed hospital treatment.

He has reportedly acknowledged to officers that he started the fight in late April.

'Obligation'

The confrontation happened in a poor district of Fresno, in central California, where Maribel Cuevas lives with her Spanish-speaking family.

The girl, who speaks little English, has admitted throwing a stone at a group of boys she says were pestering her with water balloons as she walked down the street.

An ambulance was called, but arrived flanked by three police patrol vehicles. A helicopter meanwhile hovered overhead.

The 11-year-old was then read her rights twice in English before being detained.

"We responded. We determined a felony assault had taken place and the officers took the actions that were necessary," said Fresno Police Sergeant Anthony Martinez.

Another police officer told ABC News that the girl, when asked what she thought would happen if she threw the stone, replied that it would make him "bleed".


Un-freaking-believable. :mad:

Muh? :confused:

Mother of...

Wow, all we got is a big "fuck off" from all the elderley residents when we had a big stone fight

Hehehe!!!

Helicopters, multiple police cars, and incarceration to deal with an 11 year old girl who threw a rock seems excessive.

I guess Fresno police don't have any real crimes to prosecute.

I thought that in the US it would be legal to defend yourself against assault. But I guess it's California, or maybe she's just Latin.

I can reason fighting water with water, but a stone? That is a little too much. But I see too much hype over it by the police. But then again, water balloons don't hurt much, or at all, and she threw the stone with intention to maim(or something). It all starts in childhood...

I can reason fighting water with water, but a stone? That is a little too much. But I see too much hype over it by the police. But then again, water balloons don't hurt much, or at all, and she threw the stone with intention to maim(or something). It all starts in childhood...

...Three police cars with Remington 870s and pistols, and a helicopter...versus a preteen girl with a rock...

Yeah...mmm-hmm real match there...

...Three police cars with Remington 870s and pistols, and a helicopter...versus a preteen girl with a rock...

Yeah...mmm-hmm real match there...

As I said, too much hype by the police. Had it been one car, that might have been a bit more reasonable. Or she could be a really good aim, and hit them all with one throw. But then, no one is that good.

That's just .. crazy.

Mod, what were they thinking? These mortals are crazy! ;)

I can reason fighting water with water, but a stone? That is a little too much. But I see too much hype over it by the police. But then again, water balloons don't hurt much, or at all, and she threw the stone with intention to maim(or something). It all starts in childhood...
You're thinking as if she's some criminal waiting to happen. I don't know if you remember being 11, but you do stupid things. You sometimes don't understand the consequences of your actions. Somebody provokes you, you get pissed and throw the nearest thing back at them. No 11 year old thinks "I shouldn't do that, if I hit them on the head they might have to go to the hospital".

water balloons if thrown hard enough will hurt you...i can understand where the poor kid was coming from throwing the stone, she'd hardly have a handy water balloon in her back pocket.

3 cars and a helicopter...she's hardly a bomb wielding terrorist!

i've heard other stories of california cops being assholes..anyone heard of howard neal?

o.o I vicerated Dan for throwing a water balloon on me, and i'm still here. o.o

Well, that's just absurd. 11-year-old with a rock... And when the police came, she had already thrown the rock, and was therefore unarmed.

Why did the article call them US police. They should have been called California Cops, no need to discredit all police forces around the nation. We all know how much of a joke the CA police are these days, esp LA cops.

well, the article did sayy that it was in a poorer part of California and you don't know, there might be gangs there, and the paramedics might have felt that they needed the protection. For example, Paramedics won't go anywhere near Harlem withot police escort.

But still, that is a little exsesive

Helicopters, multiple police cars, and incarceration to deal with an 11 year old girl who threw a rock seems excessive.

Not if you live in Palestine.

You're thinking as if she's some criminal waiting to happen. I don't know if you remember being 11, but you do stupid things. You sometimes don't understand the consequences of your actions. Somebody provokes you, you get pissed and throw the nearest thing back at them. No 11 year old thinks "I shouldn't do that, if I hit them on the head they might have to go to the hospital".
I take offense at that! I am-- er, I was a very responsible 11-year-old! :D

Lol!

First the puking assault...

now the Stone assault...

God damn, now I am too scared to go to California and brush past someone...

I just realized...this HAS to be a California thing.

They have the most STUPIDEST small laws, sometimes this one I am about to say can make sense:

It is unlawful to drink a cup of Coffee while in a car.

---

Never says anything about the car being ' parked '.

Oh well....I'd hate to see what you'd be charged with for a REAL crime.

I was waiting to read that happened in England

No wait the water balloon pelters woulkd want compensation and sell their story to the sun about how their life is now ruined by this devil in pre-pubescent form..... :rolleyes:

The cops and helicopter where there for the ambulance and not the little girl. That area is a gang infested sewer where paramedics have been shot at before.

She should be treated like a dangerous criminal, because she is. That is not self defense, because if there was only one person (I think there were more, but I already forgot) throwing balloons, and she was weaker then that boy, then she couldn't use a weapon that wouldn't make it a fair fight.

For example, if a man charges at you with a knife, and you shoot him, and he falls to the ground then it is acceptable, but if you shoot him again, then that is called assault and(?) battery, with a deadly weapon.

Also she could've tried running, and could also have the boys who started it arrested for assault and(?) battery with a deadly weapon.

Now she was dangerous as in the fact that she gashed somebody's head with a rock, so she could have, and might have kill one of the officers with a broken bottle or sharp rock

"All available units, we have a rockthrower, repeat a rockthrower, small 11 year old girl, approach with extreme caution"

maybe if she weren't mexican? no one mentioned if her accuser spoke little english as well.

If he wants to press charges against her, then this group of boys was harassing her, not teasing her. If they were friends, he wouldn't have thought it such a big deal.

I like how they read her her rights twice in english. they probably spoke very loud just to make sure. And slowly. Just to make sure she didn't understand.
But that's California for you.

She should be treated like a dangerous criminal, because she is. That is not self defense, because if there was only one person (I think there were more, but I already forgot) throwing balloons, and she was weaker then that boy, then she couldn't use a weapon that wouldn't make it a fair fight.

For example, if a man charges at you with a knife, and you shoot him, and he falls to the ground then it is acceptable, but if you shoot him again, then that is called assault and(?) battery, with a deadly weapon.

Also she could've tried running, and could also have the boys who started it arrested for assault and(?) battery with a deadly weapon.

Now she was dangerous as in the fact that she gashed somebody's head with a rock, so she could have, and might have kill one of the officers with a broken bottle or sharp rock

I can see it now.

Three officers dead, two critically wounded by enraged 11 year old.

It was a normal police call, boys going after a girl with water ballons, girl retaliates with a rock. Until the police arrived at the scene. Within moments three were dead, two critically wounded, one of which will never be able to walk again. Witnesses were amazed, "The little girl just went beserk, grabbed a rock and went to town on them. God I can still see here going for their eyes..." said one witness who wishes to remain anonymous. The girl when reached for comment only responded with, "That'll teach them for trying to give me cooties."

I can see it now.

Three officers dead, two critically wounded by enraged 11 year old.

It was a normal police call, boys going after a girl with water ballons, girl retaliates with a rock. Until the police arrived at the scene. Within moments three were dead, two critically wounded, one of which will never be able to walk again. Witnesses were amazed, "The little girl just went beserk, grabbed a rock and went to town on them. God I can still see here going for their eyes..." said one witness who wishes to remain anonymous. The girl when reached for comment only responded with, "That'll teach them for trying to give me cooties."

I had to get stiches for being hit in the head by a thrown wiffle ball bat. If a thing a little heavier was thrown at my neck, I would probably be dead.

What is this world coming to? If an 11-year-old threw a stone in self defense against some boys that started a fight, then honestly, why the heck do these people think they have reason to arrest her and treat her in such a traumitizing manner? Are these Californian officers bored out of their minds and just looking for some trouble to raise? Honestly, now!

completely over the top, true. please don't judge the entire U.S. by stupid incidents like this. we're not all stupid over here.

I had to get stiches for being hit in the head by a thrown wiffle ball bat. If a thing a little heavier was thrown at my neck, I would probably be dead.

Yes, but did the cops have to come and arrest the person who threw the wiffle bat at you? It's an 11 year old girl, do you really think that she's gonna go crazy and try and waste a few cops with rocks?

Oh I realize not everyone in the US is a bunch of idiots, so sorry if that offended you. But seriously...BAH!

I think it was California that also made the law that if you were caught attempting suicide and failed you'd be executed. Though it makes a little sense...still is completley odd.

You're thinking as if she's some criminal waiting to happen. I don't know if you remember being 11, but you do stupid things. You sometimes don't understand the consequences of your actions. Somebody provokes you, you get pissed and throw the nearest thing back at them. No 11 year old thinks "I shouldn't do that, if I hit them on the head they might have to go to the hospital".

And that's the thing there.

Obviously, the reaction of the police is insane.

However, the person saying, "This is just a case of an 11 year old being an 11 year old," is equally insane.

This girl needs to be taught that assault is a crime - and one she can be punished for. The punishment in this case should probably be some sort of community service type thing. The boys should probably be punished as well, although perhaps with a slightly lesser punishment (after all, what they did was assault as well).

It's nice to say, "When you are eleven, you do stupid things," but you can't leave it at that. This is the time to teach them that these actions are stupid, and that they will not be tolerated.

If that was to happen in the suburbs, shit would have happened...Her family would have recieved either a fine, or a warning. But when it happens to a poor girl, who was defending herself from the evil water baloons of death, she gets arrested. fuck the system man

Here's my tea-cup. I take my tempests with milk and sugar, please.

Thanks.


Okay, here goes: Stupid cops. Poor girl. Dumb boys. Repeat.

And that's the thing there.

Obviously, the reaction of the police is insane.

However, the person saying, "This is just a case of an 11 year old being an 11 year old," is equally insane.

This girl needs to be taught that assault is a crime - and one she can be punished for. The punishment in this case should probably be some sort of community service type thing. The boys should probably be punished as well, although perhaps with a slightly lesser punishment (after all, what they did was assault as well).

It's nice to say, "When you are eleven, you do stupid things," but you can't leave it at that. This is the time to teach them that these actions are stupid, and that they will not be tolerated.
WRONG! If you are being assaulted, would you or would you not defend yourself? she did the right thing! she stood up for herself...

When Tom Cruise was shot with a water pistol, he had the guys who did it arrested for a assault. The girl was clearly being assaulted and defended herself

WRONG! If you are being assaulted, would you or would you not defend yourself? she did the right thing! she stood up for herself...

If I were being assaulted, I would defend myself, yes. I would not escalate the violence by using more force than necessary, which is what she did.

If someone was hitting you, would you shoot them? Or would you perhaps hit them back, immobilize them, or get them off of you long enough to run away?

Yes, but did the cops have to come and arrest the person who threw the wiffle bat at you? It's an 11 year old girl, do you really think that she's gonna go crazy and try and waste a few cops with rocks?

That was because it was an accident.

Humans are unpredictable. She knew that she was going to damage them more then they damaged her. The selfdefense defense, is used too much. If a guy punches me, and I shoot him, that is probably is not going to be selfdefense. It never said they surrounded her, so she could've run (from the boys, don't run from your local police).

If I were being assaulted, I would defend myself, yes. I would not escalate the violence by using more force than necessary, which is what she did.

If someone was hitting you, would you shoot them? Or would you perhaps hit them back, immobilize them, or get them off of you long enough to run away?

This young native of California is simply following the example set before her by her government. If someone attacks you, strike back with exponential aggression.

When Tom Cruise was shot with a water pistol, he had the guys who did it arrested for a assault. The girl was clearly being assaulted and defended herself

If you over defend yourself like what she was doing, then it is also assault on her party. She knew the consequence of her actions.

The water pistol is assault to, with a deadly weapon (which is anytype of object you use to assist you, even if you pull off the person's arm and wack them with it.), and could have blinded, and possibly drowned Tom Cruise.

The cops and helicopter where there for the ambulance and not the little girl. That area is a gang infested sewer where paramedics have been shot at before.

Did anyone else even read that?

That was because it was an accident.

Humans are unpredictable. She knew that she was going to damage them more then they damaged her. The selfdefense defense, is used too much. If a guy punches me, and I shoot him, that is probably is not going to be selfdefense. It never said they surrounded her, so she could've run (from the boys, don't run from your local police).

I'm not saying what she did was right, but I believe the ammount of force used in this situation was a bit disproportionate. I can understand if there is a clear danger in the situation for that kind of response, but it was an 11 year old girl, not one of the FBI's most wanted.

Edit: I can understand the cops comming out to protect the ambulance, but to say that the 11 year needs to be treated as a dangerous violent criminal is a bit much.

This young native of California is simply following the example set before her by her government. If someone attacks you, strike back with exponential aggression.

What the government does is to use too much force to show them not to mess with us potentially saving lives (although I believe that the government doesn't want to share the WMD secrets.).

I think this all depends on the size of the rock. Escalating the situation would only be possible of this was a very large stone, one that a 11 year old might need both hands to pick up and throw. Besides that, I don't see what the big deal is. Either way, I don't see why she was jailed - probation, community service, or a fine would make more sense.

Also, three squad cars and a chopper for this situation seems to be the equivalent of using a nuke to bulldoze a shack. Some have mentioned that the area is a particularly bad neighborhood and that the ambulance needed an escort. If this was the case, then it is understandable.

I'm not saying what she did was right, but I believe the ammount of force used in this situation was a bit disproportionate. I can understand if there is a clear danger in the situation for that kind of response, but it was an 11 year old girl, not one of the FBI's most wanted.

For all anybody would know, she could have pulled out a gun the next second. Besides, maybe the police officers didn't know the others were going to the scene, or something. Then again maybe they were also there to stop the boys.

For all anybody would know, she could have pulled out a gun the next second. Besides, maybe the police officers didn't know the others were going to the scene, or something. Then again maybe they were also there to stop the boys.

Well if she threw the rock intending to make the kid "bleed" why wouldn't she have used a gun instead if she knew what they did? I know the girl needs to understand what she did was wrong, but comparing her to a violent criminal is a bit much.

I don't see how a civilised country wants to prosecute a child for whatever behaviour. It is as child, which in most cases can't oversee the effects of its actions. You can't judge a child with same or similar measure as an adult.

Up to a certain age a child shouldn't be held responsible for anything (!) it does, be it in terms of civil law or be it crimina law. From that age up to becoming an adult any punishment needs to reflect age and maturity.

I think this all depends on the size of the rock. Escalating the situation would only be possible of this was a very large stone, one that a 11 year old might need both hands to pick up and throw. Besides that, I don't see what the big deal is. Either way, I don't see why she was jailed - probation, community service, or a fine would make more sense.

Also, three squad cars and a chopper for this situation seems to be the equivalent of using a nuke to bulldoze a shack. Some have mentioned that the area is a particularly bad neighborhood and that the ambulance needed an escort. If this was the case, then it is understandable.

It was stated that it caused a large gash (which I take into as a deep wound), the guy needed hospitalization, so it was probably a cobble. Assault is assault regardless of the situation. As stated in similar threads, i believe at the age of seven, children should be able to tell right from wrong (unless there is something wrong with them), and thus should recieve sentences similar to that of adults.

If she killed someone (2nd degree), should she also recieve a lesser sentencing?

Did anyone else even read that?

I did and if this is true it makes the police reaction even more ridiculous as they are wasting time with this incident of a stone and water balloons when they should be trying to reduce gang violence.

Throwing a rock at someone is considered Assault With a Deadly Weapon.

You also all think that 11 year olds don't think. I'm sure there are plenty who think before they act its called matruity. It can happen at any age. My brother is 11 1/2 and he thinks before he acts.

I don't see how a civilised country wants to prosecute a child for whatever behaviour. It is as child, which in most cases can't oversee the effects of its actions. You can't judge a child with same or similar measure as an adult.

Up to a certain age a child shouldn't be held responsible for anything (!) it does, be it in terms of civil law or be it crimina law. From that age up to becoming an adult any punishment needs to reflect age and maturity.


So your saying criminals below the age of 13 should just be let off?

What the government does is to use too much force to show them not to mess with us potentially saving lives (although I believe that the government doesn't want to share the WMD secrets.).

You are aware that people are dying in the middle east?

I don't see how a civilised country wants to prosecute a child for whatever behaviour. It is as child, which in most cases can't oversee the effects of its actions. You can't judge a child with same or similar measure as an adult.

Up to a certain age a child shouldn't be held responsible for anything (!) it does, be it in terms of civil law or be it crimina law. From that age up to becoming an adult any punishment needs to reflect age and maturity.

So if a five year old decided they wanted to kill someone, then they shouldn't be punished becaue they don't know what they are doing?

The girl fully knew what was going to happen, when asked "What did you think would happen when you threw the rock" she replied that it would make them bleed. She knew what was going to happen.

For all anybody would know, she could have pulled out a gun the next second.

Or she could have been a suicide bomber, in which case the police would have been better off shooting her in the head seven times.

You are aware that people are dying in the middle east?

You are aware that more people would die if they kindof figure out how to build a nuke.

You are aware that more people would die if they kindof figure out how to build a nuke.


This thread is not about the middle east.

The water pistol is assault to, with a deadly weapon (which is anytype of object you use to assist you, even if you pull off the person's arm and wack them with it.), and could have blinded, and possibly drowned Tom Cruise.

That's just insane. A squirt gun is a deadly lesson? Is that a joke? The amount of water it produces is in no way enough nor could it ever conceviably be enough to drown a person. Ridiculous.

You are aware that more people would die if they kindof figure out how to build a nuke.

Can you provide evidence?

>So your saying criminals below the age of 13 should just be let off?

Yes. Maybe child custody might be an issue for "notorious" offenders.

>So if a five year old decided they wanted to kill someone, then they
>shouldn't be punished becaue they don't know what they are doing?

Of course not. Anyway, I don't think a five year old isn't capable of such thinking, planning and doing. You don't hear much of such stories.

You also don't punish someone who commits a crime in certain mental states. In those cases you find him not guilty or maybe put him under psychological surveillance, maybe in a lunatic asylum. But you don't punish the subject for not beeing able to tell wrong from right.

>The girl fully knew what was going to happen, when asked "What did you
>think would happen when you threw the rock" she replied that it would make
>them bleed. She knew what was going to happen.

And does this include the possibility of severe injuries? I don't think so.

Can you provide evidence?



I say again....This is not about the middle east take this somewhere else!!!!!!!!

This basically goes back to the whole stupid idea of "zero tolerance"

Basically, a bunch of stuff gets in the news about youth crime. Maybe with a lurid story about a 13 year old raping a classmate or something. Then comes a pressure group calling for the government to "do something." So the government comes out with a "zero tolerance" approach, which sounds tough. What that means is that your kids go to jail.

Democracy at its finest.

This thread is not about the middle east.

Correct, this thread is about the hypocrisy of an authoratative structure that breeds a climate of fear and militancy then tosses a little girl in jail when she follows the example.

What the government does is to use too much force to show them not to mess with us potentially saving lives (although I believe that the government doesn't want to share the WMD secrets.).

By "them" I'm assuming you mean all the other 11-year-old girls out there?

Can you provide evidence?

Iraq gassing the Kurds, why not just nuke them, lets see they would nuke the country they went to war with before, and others.

But the Humanitarians people person guy thinks I am attempting a hijacking or something so enough on that

Now it is possible to drown someone with a water pistol. First if they inhale while the water is traveling down, it could go down the epiglotis, like food, and could drown the person, or cause violent coughing, which could lead to the bursting of a major blood vessel.

By "them" I'm assuming you mean all the other 11-year-old girls out there?

Them, the enemies of the state.

Iraq gassing the Kurds, why not just nuke them, lets see they would nuke the country they went to war with before, and others.

But the Humanitarians people person guy thinks I am attempting a hijacking or something so enough on that

Now it is possible to drown someone with a water pistol. First if they inhale while the water is traveling down, it could go down the epiglotis, like food, and could drown the person, or cause violent coughing, which could lead to the bursting of a major blood vessel.

I'll be more than happy to address this issue if you want to start another thread. From the looks of it Hamanistan is going to have a stroke.

...if he did would that make us liable for manslaughter?

Just because she thought that the boy would bleed does not mean that she wanted to do him any true or permanent harm. It means she was angry and embarressed, and wanted the other kidsto stop pelting her with water balloons. That does not make her a criminal. A rock is not a deadly weapon in the hands of an 11 year old girl.

>So your saying criminals below the age of 13 should just be let off?

Yes. Maybe child custody might be an issue for "notorious" offenders.

>So if a five year old decided they wanted to kill someone, then they
>shouldn't be punished becaue they don't know what they are doing?

Of course not. Anyway, I don't think a five year old isn't capable of such thinking, planning and doing. You don't hear much of such stories.

You also don't punish someone who commits a crime in certain mental states. In those cases you find him not guilty or maybe put him under psychological surveillance, maybe in a lunatic asylum. But you don't punish the subject for not beeing able to tell wrong from right.

>The girl fully knew what was going to happen, when asked "What did you
>think would happen when you threw the rock" she replied that it would make
>them bleed. She knew what was going to happen.

And does this include the possibility of severe injuries? I don't think so.

So bascially if they are not adults (18) then they shouldnt be punished, even if they are 17 at 11:59 pm the day before their birthday and they murder someone. A 5 year old could think about killing someone.

:sniper: :mp5:

Down here in Florida, land of stolen votes and old people, there is a law that states if u are in self defense, u may KILL the person assaulting you. Damn where was this law when iw as in middle school. It'd be Tupac and Big-E all over again.

Just because she thought that the boy would bleed does not mean that she wanted to do him any true or permanent harm. It means she was angry and embarressed, and wanted the other kidsto stop pelting her with water balloons. That does not make her a criminal. A rock is not a deadly weapon in the hands of an 11 year old girl.

A seven year old could kill someone by throwing a rock, even younger. If she knew what was going to happen, and she still did it then she wished them harm, if she was embarassed then why didn't she run away, and if angered, why not ask them to stop in an angry tone.

I'm not saying what she did was right, but I believe the ammount of force used in this situation was a bit disproportionate. I can understand if there is a clear danger in the situation for that kind of response, but it was an 11 year old girl, not one of the FBI's most wanted.

Edit: I can understand the cops comming out to protect the ambulance, but to say that the 11 year needs to be treated as a dangerous violent criminal is a bit much.
Hey you don't know how dangerous those 11 yr olds can be... after all, they're teeth are even with a adult's crotch... and man they can put up a fight. :D

Seriously tho. what they don't say is if the parents of the boy who was hit with the rock is pushing for persecution. if they are, then the police have no choice but to process her.

then again, this is California... :rolleyes:

I'll be more than happy to address this issue if you want to start another thread. From the looks of it Hamanistan is going to have a stroke.

...if he did would that make us liable for manslaughter?

No, we wouldn't be liable, or at least not me after this post


I am not liable for anything that happens to you for reading any of my posts. If something already has happened I am still not responsible, for your actions are your own, not mine, and I have no affect on them.

Now it is possible to drown someone with a water pistol. First if they inhale while the water is traveling down, it could go down the epiglotis, like food, and could drown the person, or cause violent coughing, which could lead to the bursting of a major blood vessel.

Again, more ridiculousness. Please provide me with evidence that this has ever happened in all of human history. Show me an instance in which someone has sprayed someone else with a squirt gun and that person has drowned or coughed to death. It hasn't ever happened, because you're making this up.

Haha...:D

I just found it funny. Too bad I wasn't there to witness the grand arrest...;)

A seven year old could kill someone by throwing a rock, even younger. If she knew what was going to happen, and she still did it then she wished them harm, if she was embarassed then why didn't she run away, and if angered, why not ask them to stop in an angry tone.


I agree 100%

So bascially if they are not adults (18) then they shouldnt be punished, even if they are 17 at 11:59 pm the day before their birthday and they murder someone. A 5 year old could think about killing someone.

No, they should be punished according to age and maturity. That means that there should be different punishments for e.g. stealing a cd or whatnot if the subject is

a) 10 years old
b) 15
c) 17
d) 16 with the maturity of a 13 year old
e) 21

Again, more ridiculousness. Please provide me with evidence that this has ever happened in all of human history. Show me an instance in which someone has sprayed someone else with a squirt gun and that person has drowned or coughed to death. It hasn't ever happened, because you're making this up.

If you read my posts, I never said it has happened, but it could happen.
It is also possible to kill someone with a piece of paper, its not hard to kill a human.

If you read my posts, I never said it has happened, but it could happen.
It is also possible to kill someone with a piece of paper, its not hard to kill a human.


Since I'm only 17 I won't be punished for killing someone. Give me that watergun and some paper please. :p

No, they should be punished according to age and maturity. That means that there should be different punishments for e.g. stealing a cd or whatnot if the subject is

a) 10 years old
b) 15
c) 17
d) 16 with the maturity of a 13 year old
e) 21

So if a sixteen year old acts like a 13 year old, but knew better, he would only be punished as if he was thirteen?

As I always say, seven should be the cut off line unless there is something wrong.

Back in the day, this would have been handled with a paddle, either by the school or by her parents. But now the school can't do that and nobody trusts parents to discipline their children anymore. So here we are.

If you read my posts, I never said it has happened, but it could happen.
It is also possible to kill someone with a piece of paper, its not hard to kill a human.

No, it couldn't happen. You are making this up as you go. It is physically impossible for a human to drown on the amount of water discharged by a squirt gun.

Since I'm only 17 I won't be punished for killing someone. Give me that watergun and some paper please. :p

With those two It's possible to:
Watergun:
Drown
Blunt force trauma
Suffocation (if swallowed)
Possible poisining (if you fill it up with poisin)

Paper:
Suffocation
Decapitation
Cuts a major blood vessel

Or it can just cut off a body part.

Just remembered part of the rules, do not kill anybody. Killing is illegal, and you shouldn't try to kill anyone.

No, it couldn't happen. You are making this up as you go. It is physically impossible for a human to drown on the amount of water discharged by a squirt gun.

No, it also depends on the gun. One of the supersoaker obviously have a larger threat of killing someone then one of those keychain ones. A keychain one poses almost no threat but the threat still exists.

I know some of you are thinking that this girl should not have reacted so violently to some water ballons but:
1. water balloons hurt with more pressure and speed which seems to be the case considering she could not reach them from her position.
2. I personally would have viciously attacked them. I probably would have ended up in a mental hospital or in jail with some terrorist.
3. Where was she supposed to find something else to throw stones Z(and im not talking about pebbles) were probably the nearest thing she had. Was she supposed to skip down to a water balloon store and buy some to throw back. No.
4. And did she have to react? Yes. Its called self defense but more importantly dignity. Plus she wasoutnumbered and probably starting to get angry and she wasnt about to go to the ice cream store. It probably made her embarassed to not fight back and as an 11 year old didnt have that much self control.

There is no way a papercut will sever a blood vessel, much less cut off a body part. That is really reaching.

A seven year old could kill someone by throwing a rock, even younger. If she knew what was going to happen, and she still did it then she wished them harm, if she was embarassed then why didn't she run away, and if angered, why not ask them to stop in an angry tone.
You seem to be quite idealistic. Asking children to stop in an angry tone would be more likely to provoke them to higher acts of violence. Indignant that she would have the audacity to tell them what to do, the "Tribal" mentality of a group of young boys would be inflamed. As a person who underwent years of torture at the hands of "Harmless" lettle boys without ever fighting back, I can tell you this first hand.
She did what she had to do, shocked them out of their cycle. The police thing is overkill. It was a little girl defending herself.

Hey you don't know how dangerous those 11 yr olds can be... after all, they're teeth are even with a adult's crotch... and man they can put up a fight. :D

Seriously tho. what they don't say is if the parents of the boy who was hit with the rock is pushing for persecution. if they are, then the police have no choice but to process her.

then again, this is California... :rolleyes:

Imagine a UFC league for children. It would rake in millions from people watching the little ankle biters fight dirty. :p

No, we wouldn't be liable, or at least not me after this post


I am not liable for anything that happens to you for reading any of my posts. If something already has happened I am still not responsible, for your actions are your own, not mine, and I have no affect on them.

So according to this statement the only thing the girl did wrong was not to declare that she was not liable if casting a stone at someone's head caused physical, mental or emotional damage?

There is no way a papercut will sever a blood vessel, much less cut off a body part. That is really reaching.


You can cut a blood vessel with a paper cut easy. Unless the person is like fat or something.

There is no way a papercut will sever a blood vessel, much less cut off a body part. That is really reaching.

I didn't say paper cut. After a little sawing it will cause a cut, a little more and more then maybe you have to worry, of course it would take a while, but it will still happen.

US police pursue girl over stone (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4689459.stm)

An 11-year-old girl who threw a stone at a group of boys pelting her with water balloons is being prosecuted on serious assault charges in California.
Maribel Cuevas was arrested in April in a police operation which involved three police cars and a helicopter.

She has since spent five days in detention, in which she was granted one 30 minute visit by her parents, and has spent a month under house arrest.

Her lawyer accuses the authorities of criminalising childhood behaviour.

"They're treating her like a violent parole offender," Richard Beshwate said. "It's not a felony, it's an 11-year-old acting like an 11-year-old."

The girl is due back in court at the beginning of next month.

Police say they had to investigate as the boy who was hit by the stone she threw suffered a deep gash to his head and needed hospital treatment.

He has reportedly acknowledged to officers that he started the fight in late April.

'Obligation'

The confrontation happened in a poor district of Fresno, in central California, where Maribel Cuevas lives with her Spanish-speaking family.

The girl, who speaks little English, has admitted throwing a stone at a group of boys she says were pestering her with water balloons as she walked down the street.

An ambulance was called, but arrived flanked by three police patrol vehicles. A helicopter meanwhile hovered overhead.

The 11-year-old was then read her rights twice in English before being detained.

"We responded. We determined a felony assault had taken place and the officers took the actions that were necessary," said Fresno Police Sergeant Anthony Martinez.

Another police officer told ABC News that the girl, when asked what she thought would happen if she threw the stone, replied that it would make him "bleed".


Un-freaking-believable. :mad:


Someone needs to pelt those officers with water ballons :D

Part of this comes from the fact that in a lot of cases now, if a kids parents are told that their kid is misbehaving they get belligerent and take their kids side, instead of beating their kids be-hind like they did back in the day.

So when parents don't deal properly with this kinda shit, institutions have to and this is the kinda thing that happens.

Plus, to reply to an earlier post... if I get shot, it doesn't matter if the bastard who shot me is 15 or 34. I'm still just as dead. Equal crimes should get equal time. And if the kid does less time because they're a kid then the people who are supposed to be taking care of the kid should have to serve the balance.... I mean technically they're partly responsible right? Just like if a dog attacks someone and the owner gets punished.

No, it couldn't happen. You are making this up as you go. It is physically impossible for a human to drown on the amount of water discharged by a squirt gun.


Not if you shot it down their windpipe ;)

So according to this statement the only thing the girl did wrong was not to declare that she was not liable if casting a stone at someone's head caused physical, mental or emotional damage?

No, for those were her actions. Liability only changes the persons who fault it is. Now a sign is a powerful legal thing, and are very important. Her fault was over doing her "selfdefense."

You seem to be quite idealistic. Asking children to stop in an angry tone would be more likely to provoke them to higher acts of violence. Indignant that she would have the audacity to tell them what to do, the "Tribal" mentality of a group of young boys would be inflamed. As a person who underwent years of torture at the hands of "Harmless" lettle boys without ever fighting back, I can tell you this first hand.
She did what she had to do, shocked them out of their cycle. The police thing is overkill. It was a little girl defending herself.

I second that thought, though unlike your experience I was someone who would always fight back. It cost me a broken arm and a golfball to the head with one very vicious neighbor.

I didn't say paper cut. After a little sawing it will cause a cut, a little more and more then maybe you have to worry, of course it would take a while, but it will still happen.

I'm sure someone will throw a rock at you long before you have a chance to saw someone in half with a piece of paper and put an end to your facetious ramblings.

I didn't say paper cut. After a little sawing it will cause a cut, a little more and more then maybe you have to worry, of course it would take a while, but it will still happen.
No it won't. That's completely absurd. For starters, the first bit of blood would soak the paper's edge. Secondly, paper cuts only break skin. They don't work like hacksaws. You would barely make it through the skin, much less bone and tendon. thirdly, what is this supposed to prove?

No, for those were her actions. Liability only changes the persons who fault it is. Now a sign is a powerful legal thing, and are very important. Her fault was over doing her "selfdefense."

So maybe she should have opted to defend herself with all those fluffy cotton balls that can be found lying on the streets.

So maybe she should have opted to defend herself with all those fluffy cotton balls that can be found lying on the streets.

Anything that would make the fight equal is allowed. She could've used waterballoons back if she had some.

Part of this comes from the fact that in a lot of cases now, if a kids parents are told that their kid is misbehaving they get belligerent and take their kids side, instead of beating their kids be-hind like they did back in the day.

I myself have seen many times parents stick up for their kids, though never me. MY brother however is a screaming spoiled vicious fat ba...... well you get the idea. He bites ,he scratches ,right now im recovering from severe cuts and bruises. But if i so much as poke him ...welll never mind im getting off subject arent I? Well yes some parents will defend their children for anything, wheter its violence or vandalism or anything else.

Anything that would make the fight equal is allowed. She could've used waterballoons back if she had some.
Like I said earlier where was she supposed to find water balloons? The waterballoon man's truck? The waterballoon store?

It was stated that it caused a large gash (which I take into as a deep wound), the guy needed hospitalization, so it was probably a cobble. Good. They shouldn't have been throwing stuff at her. I mean, what was she supposed to do? Tell them to stop? :rolleyes: Please, I've been in secondary school long enough to know that they should have had 6 rocks to the head, not one.

Also, paper does not cut through more then a few layers of skin, as mentioned in too many posts to quote. Get yourself a butcher knife. Much better.

Also, now that I traced this back to its source:

The legal definition of a deadly weapon is one that is "designed or reasonably calculated to cause death or substantial bodily harm". The keyword is "reasonably". The law doesn't go for this kind of childish sophistry. There is at least the question of whether a reasonable 11 year old girl can be expected to understand the dangers of throwing a rock at someone. Noone reasonably thinks that a squirt gun used normally will kill or maim someone. Now if you took a water cannon and shoved it down someone's throat while blocking their nasal passages, you could be said to have crossed the line.

Not if you shot it down their windpipe ;)

Even then it wouldn't work. Drowning is a form of asphyxiation, meaning that you must have taken enough water into your lungs that there is not enough air from which to extract oxygen.

And even if that is the case, your body's natural reaction is to expel water with a cough followed by an intake of air. Meaning to drown there must be a continuous supply of water to be inhaled on subsequent breaths.

It takes an inch of standing water to drown an infant, and substantially more for a normal sized human being. As I said, Jibea was making his claims up.

Like I said earlier where was she supposed to find water balloons? The waterballoon man's truck? The waterballoon store?

Balloons don't always pop when thrown at a person, like my little brother, they just hit him and fall down that could be used again. If some happened to not break then she could use those.

Even then it wouldn't work. Drowning is a form of asphyxiation, meaning that you must have taken enough water into your lungs that there is not enough air from which to extract oxygen.
It takes an inch of standing water to drown an infant, and substantially more for a normal sized human being. As I said, Jibea was making his claims up.

There could be more then one person, and guns. So if one runs out... it is possible, and last time I checked an infant is a person.

Things like this make me worry. My little goofball is going to be growing up in a world that may not appreciate his unique genetic talents. :(

Finally! I had a thought I could not recall but here it is: A few weeks ago my brother started 4th grade and was a disruption in class. In the second week during recess a girl threw a rock at his best friend so he threw a rock at her best friend, creating a gash in her leg. Now should my brother be sent to jail? Of course but maybe not primarily because of this issue. You decide.

Anything that would make the fight equal is allowed. She could've used waterballoons back if she had some.

I see, so it's her fault that she was not adequately armed. Following that logic does this mean rape victims can exact revenge on the rapists, but only if they have a penis?

Quote-Originally Posted by Jibea
"Anything that would make the fight equal is allowed. She could've used waterballoons back if she had some."

Numbers matter...
A fight where multiple targets are attacking a single one justify an increase in the amount of force used.
Imagine the scenario...You are a young girl surronded by taunting boys, each the same size as you, probably stronger than you, taunting you, casting insults. You've probably tried to tell them to stop, probably screamed at them...Your school clothes are wet, you are probably in tears, utterly humiliated, you have no one near you to help, you can't just walk away because you are surrounded, and the attack continues...You can't catch a water balloon to throw back because they are being thrown AT you not to you...
You see a rock.
Unless you are Ghandi, you are throwing the rock....

Balloons don't always pop when thrown at a person, like my little brother, they just hit him and fall down that could be used again. If some happened to not break then she could use those.
This is true if playing in say someones backyard but considering there were stones aplenty about and she was on or near a street, the water ballons most likely were run over or popped on large rocks.

First off let me say, I think all actions after the arrival of the police were a bit... no a lot overdone. But a loto has been made of the fact three squad cars arrived and a helicoptor was overhead.

Does anyone know what info the police had? Other than perhaps some resident calling and saying something to the effect that there are a group of kids on the street and they appear to be fighting.

In this day and age it could be anything from a group of boys tossing a few water balloons at a girl and her throwing a rock back at them or it could be a bunch of juvenile gang members with weapons upto and including firearms.

Now lets say the call was "There are a gang of kids outside, they're fighting or something and one of them is bleeding!"

Again, I'm not saying an arrest was nessesarily warrented under the circumstances, but I do not begrudge the police their initial response.

Things like this make me worry. My little goofball is going to be growing up in a world that may not appreciate his unique genetic talents. :(
like throwing water balloons filled with Scope?

or worse... Kim Chee Juice... :D

Quote-Originally Posted by Jibea
"Anything that would make the fight equal is allowed. She could've used waterballoons back if she had some."

Numbers matter...
A fight where multiple targets are attacking a single one justify an increase in the amount of force used.
Imagine the scenario...You are a young girl surronded by taunting boys, each the same size as you, probably stronger than you, taunting you, casting insults. You've probably tried to tell them to stop, probably screamed at them...Your school clothes are wet, you are probably in tears, utterly humiliated, you have no one near you to help, you can't just walk away because you are surrounded, and the attack continues...You can't catch a water balloon to throw back because they are being thrown AT you not to you...
You see a rock.
Unless you are Ghandi, you are throwing the rock....
Yes quite true and upon reading your statement i noticed something interesting, considering the girl is soaked from water balloons she might have been made embarassed form the fact that the boys may have been able to see through her clothes, this all depends on wheter the shirt was light or not.

Finally! I had a thought I could not recall but here it is: A few weeks ago my brother started 4th grade and was a disruption in class. In the second week during recess a girl threw a rock at his best friend so he threw a rock at her best friend, creating a gash in her leg. Now should my brother be sent to jail? Of course but maybe not primarily because of this issue. You decide.

Sent to jail? No.

Punished? Absolutely.

Edit: Of course, I am not adverse to taking juveniles to the police station for an hour or two - to impress upon them that what they did won't be tolerated.

Throwing a rock and seriously hurting someone is not an appropriate response to a barrage of water balloons. Those kids were being jerks but after some sobbing she would have been fine.

The more I think about this the more it sounds reasonable. She and everyone else need to know that it is serious and dangerous to hit someone with a rock, and what better way to teach them than to take her off in a police car. Most likely the charges will be dropped and she will go off with a stern warning and a lesson learned. the only thing that makes this sound absurd is the three police cars and the helicopter, but as someone said earlier the police most likely just heard "felony assault" and didn't know whether it was a kid with a rock or a nutcase brandishing a handgun.

like throwing water balloons filled with Scope?

or worse... Kim Chee Juice... :D

I have thrown balloons filled with everything from urine to pancake batter in my day. I expect nothing less from my child. :)

And to further my last statement, this could have been a motivation for more anger then was necessary or throwing something she thought perhaps more hurtful at them, which in this case would have been the rock.

However, the person saying, "This is just a case of an 11 year old being an 11 year old," is equally insane.

This girl needs to be taught that assault is a crime .
The Girl AND the Boys.

Those kids were being jerks but after some sobbing she would have been fine.the Kids were committing assault...and should be given the same treatment (as the girl)

committing assault might be considered "being-a-Jerk"...but it does deserve the same treatment...

If you arrest the girl...you have to arrest the Boys.

Well, they weren't doing the same thing. Hers was a felony assault. Theirs was at best a simple assault with no risk of bodily harm and really does amount to "boys being boys"

US police pursue girl over stone (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4689459.stm)

An 11-year-old girl who threw a stone at a group of boys pelting her with water balloons is being prosecuted on serious assault charges in California.
Maribel Cuevas was arrested in April in a police operation which involved three police cars and a helicopter.

She has since spent five days in detention, in which she was granted one 30 minute visit by her parents, and has spent a month under house arrest.

Her lawyer accuses the authorities of criminalising childhood behaviour.

"They're treating her like a violent parole offender," Richard Beshwate said. "It's not a felony, it's an 11-year-old acting like an 11-year-old."

The girl is due back in court at the beginning of next month.

Police say they had to investigate as the boy who was hit by the stone she threw suffered a deep gash to his head and needed hospital treatment.

He has reportedly acknowledged to officers that he started the fight in late April.

'Obligation'

The confrontation happened in a poor district of Fresno, in central California, where Maribel Cuevas lives with her Spanish-speaking family.

The girl, who speaks little English, has admitted throwing a stone at a group of boys she says were pestering her with water balloons as she walked down the street.

An ambulance was called, but arrived flanked by three police patrol vehicles. A helicopter meanwhile hovered overhead.

The 11-year-old was then read her rights twice in English before being detained.

"We responded. We determined a felony assault had taken place and the officers took the actions that were necessary," said Fresno Police Sergeant Anthony Martinez.

Another police officer told ABC News that the girl, when asked what she thought would happen if she threw the stone, replied that it would make him "bleed".

Well done California police service!!! I for one applaud their work in catching dangerous criminals such as this girl, what is to say that if she had not been arrested she would not have gone on to commit more dangerous acts such as this one.

Well, they weren't doing the same thing. Hers was a felony assault. Theirs was at best a simple assault with no risk of bodily harm and really does amount to "boys being boys"the stone can kill you. The Water balloon (when it blows in your face) can seriously damage the eye...causing permanent handicap to you vision...or even blindness.

both are assault.

Main difference is that she was scared...she was defending herself against a gang...

Her assault was to stop their assault.

The Girl AND the Boys.

You know, if you had bothered to keep reading my post (which wasn't that long), you would have noticed that I actually said this.

Both were committing assault, and both should be punished. The girl used a deadlier weapon, and thus her punishment should be a bit higher, but all involved should receive punishment.

Both were committing assault, and both should be punished. The girl used a deadlier weapon, and thus her punishment should be a bit higher, but all involved should receive punishment.The Girl's assault was in self-Defense, and thus her punishment should be shorter.

also the Girl was at a physical disadvantage...because they were a Gang (one vs Many)

Well, they weren't doing the same thing. Hers was a felony assault. Theirs was at best a simple assault with no risk of bodily harm and really does amount to "boys being boys"

A group of boys throwing water ballons at an unarmed girl is "boys being boys" but the girl dfending herself with the only thing she had is a felony. :rolleyes:

Have you guys stopped to think what probably would have happened after they ran out of water ballons? A bunch of guys, a (probably) crying girl, rocks on the ground.... rocks don't care who throw them. And 11-year boys aren't noted for sensitivity.

Should the girl be punished? Yes.
Treated as a vicious criminal? No.

Both were committing assault, and both should be punished. The girl used a deadlier weapon, and thus her punishment should be a bit higher, but all involved should receive punishment.


Dunno, I was at a friend's 21st birthday party, got nailed in the eye with a waterballoon and had to be hospitalized for destroyed epithelial tissue in my cornea, with 2 months of home-treatment afterwards. Almost wish it was a gash in my head with a rock.

I have thrown balloons filled with everything from urine to pancake batter in my day. I expect nothing less from my child. :)
ok... Pancake batter... that's a new one for me... :D

Damn, now I wish I knew you when I was growing up... then again, my parents are probably happy we didn't get together...

Throwing water balloons by 2 boys hardly constitutes a gang (ah boys will be boys crap is a crock of shit as well!). In using self defense the law only allows you to use enough force to get away from the attack not use any and all deadly methods possible. Kids are getting away with too much violent garbage nowadays ((Personally I dont believe they wasted the time,money and energy of using a helicopter and 3 cop cars...media exaggerates as well as the parents)). She should have ran home and told her parents....she knew that it could do a lot of harm. The boys should be punished as well.. that was disgraceful behavior on their part. A rock can be a deadly weapon. We dont know if this girl has a prior record because I seriously doubt that if you havent run into trouble with the law before you would get 5 days in juve. hall withoug a prior incident. Someone is trying to stir up race relations in that report. That girl wanted to make them bleed... I can understand the anger but you just cant do that.

I have thrown balloons filled with everything from urine to pancake batter in my day. I expect nothing less from my child. :)


Please tell me you arent serious! Urine? That is unsanitary and downright disgusting!! I hope you dont have kids if that is youre attitude toward other human beings!

self defense: the law only allows you to use enough force to get away from the attack. source?
I say you are "misplacing" the words.
here is 10 dollars betting the TRUE Wording is:

self defense: law allows you to use enough force to stop the attack

US police pursue girl over stone (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4689459.stm)

An 11-year-old girl who threw a stone at a group of boys pelting her with water balloons is being prosecuted on serious assault charges in California.
Maribel Cuevas was arrested in April in a police operation which involved three police cars and a helicopter.

She has since spent five days in detention, in which she was granted one 30 minute visit by her parents, and has spent a month under house arrest.

Her lawyer accuses the authorities of criminalising childhood behaviour.

"They're treating her like a violent parole offender," Richard Beshwate said. "It's not a felony, it's an 11-year-old acting like an 11-year-old."

The girl is due back in court at the beginning of next month.

Police say they had to investigate as the boy who was hit by the stone she threw suffered a deep gash to his head and needed hospital treatment.

He has reportedly acknowledged to officers that he started the fight in late April.

'Obligation'

The confrontation happened in a poor district of Fresno, in central California, where Maribel Cuevas lives with her Spanish-speaking family.

The girl, who speaks little English, has admitted throwing a stone at a group of boys she says were pestering her with water balloons as she walked down the street.

An ambulance was called, but arrived flanked by three police patrol vehicles. A helicopter meanwhile hovered overhead.

The 11-year-old was then read her rights twice in English before being detained.

"We responded. We determined a felony assault had taken place and the officers took the actions that were necessary," said Fresno Police Sergeant Anthony Martinez.

Another police officer told ABC News that the girl, when asked what she thought would happen if she threw the stone, replied that it would make him "bleed".


Un-freaking-believable. :mad:

What the frick is wrong with this country

The Girl's assault was in self-Defense, and thus her punishment should be shorter.

also the Girl was at a physical disadvantage...because they were a Gang (one vs Many)

If she had run up and hit them or thrown something at them that would reasonably have the same effect as a water balloon, you would have a point.

However, she escalated the violence. She specifically did something that she *knew* would cause them more harm than they had caused her - and has stated that her intention was to do so. We cannot act like this is acceptable behavior.

Please tell me you arent serious! Urine? That is unsanitary and downright disgusting!! I hope you dont have kids if that is youre attitude toward other human beings!

Urine is clean, it has hardly no bacteria/germs if any (I read from grossology a while ago.).

Why won't you let Golfballs have baby goats if that is his attitude towards humans?

If she had run up and hit them or thrown something at them that would reasonably have the same effect as a water balloon, you would have a point.

However, she escalated the violence. She specifically did something that she *knew* would cause them more harm than they had caused her - and has stated that her intention was to do so. We cannot act like this is acceptable behavior.

I have been stating similar things the whole thread but no one listens. They hate me :(.

The girl and the police both overreacted. The girl is just dumb for throwing a rock and not throwing something that wouldnt cause as much damage, and the police just overreacted hugely. It's an 11 year old girl come on, if she gets excessive on smack on the head will have her out cold, the police took it way to seriously and she's just a bitch for throwing something that she was sure would cause damage.

For all anybody would know, she could have pulled out a gun the next second. Besides, maybe the police officers didn't know the others were going to the scene, or something. Then again maybe they were also there to stop the boys.

She must be a REALLY strong 11 year old to use a gun effectively not to mention if she had a gun to begin with wouldn't she had shot them instead?

Like it's been said already its just the moronic, "Zero Tolorance" crap. If a person IS going to shoot up something, they wouldn't go around telling people.

A seven year old could kill someone by throwing a rock, even younger. If she knew what was going to happen, and she still did it then she wished them harm, if she was embarassed then why didn't she run away, and if angered, why not ask them to stop in an angry tone.

Run away? they'd follow her idiot.

Telling them to stop?

Girl:"STOP HITTING ME WITH WATER BALLONS OR ELSE!"
Police:"You're under arrest for terrorist Threats, DROP THE WEAPON DROP THE WEAPON!!! *BAM*" "Terrorist 11 year old down!"

If she had run up and hit them or thrown something at them that would reasonably have the same effect as a water balloon, you would have a point.

However, she escalated the violence. She specifically did something that she *knew* would cause them more harm than they had caused her - and has stated that her intention was to do so. We cannot act like this is acceptable behavior.

What is she going to throw? Dirt? Bits of broken glass that could have been on the road?

It's also hard to run up and hit someone when they're nailing you with water ballons... hurts a lot more, for one thing.

Yes, she did something that would cause her more harm then one of their hits would. But enough water ballons hitting you, not playful hitting, and you'll be hurting too.

Rocks are dangerous, but it's not like she kept going after them with rocks. One rock. yes, it caused damage. but it also got them to stop.

the boys are probably white... that's why they're not being punished.

This is all nonsense the girl is latin, spanish-speaking (well i like spanish) but she must be and illegal inmigrant, most latins are barbarians and act only on their instincts, and this shows racism.

The police didn't overreacted, those cops were racist eventhough most of them were latins i reckon, this is a prove of how racism is still present even in "democratic" countries.

I can see it now.

Three officers dead, two critically wounded by enraged 11 year old.

It was a normal police call, boys going after a girl with water ballons, girl retaliates with a rock. Until the police arrived at the scene. Within moments three were dead, two critically wounded, one of which will never be able to walk again. Witnesses were amazed, "The little girl just went beserk, grabbed a rock and went to town on them. God I can still see here going for their eyes..." said one witness who wishes to remain anonymous. The girl when reached for comment only responded with, "That'll teach them for trying to give me cooties."

I feel like buying you a drink.

She specifically did something that she *knew* would cause them more harm than they had caused her - and has stated that her intention was to do so. really?

A group of boys throwing water ballons at an unarmed girl is "boys being boys" but the girl dfending herself with the only thing she had is a felony. :rolleyes:

Have you guys stopped to think what probably would have happened after they ran out of water ballons? A bunch of guys, a (probably) crying girl, rocks on the ground.... rocks don't care who throw them. And 11-year boys aren't noted for sensitivity.

Should the girl be punished? Yes.
Treated as a vicious criminal? No.
Getting wet and angry is not the same as get bloodied. I'm sorry, but it's not. You don't have a right to self defense against water. I don't see what is so unacceptable about getting wet that makes it ok to injure someone to avoid.

You are going a long way to assume that the kids would have thrown rocks at her. By that standard I can shoot anyone who looks at me funny because for all I know they may have a knife on them. I think if they were planning on hurting her they would have started with the rocks and not the balloons.

This is all nonsense the girl is latin, spanish-speaking (well i like spanish) but she must be and illegal inmigrant, most latins are barbarians and act only on their instincts, and this shows racism.

The police didn't overreacted, those cops were racist eventhough most of them were latins i reckon, this is a prove of how racism is still present even in "democratic" countries.
That's completely unfounded and ridiculous.

That was a uncivilized act and should be punished, we must send a message to this violent people, we won't tolerate their agressions.

For God's sake the boys were only playing they were not hurting her, and that little latina attacked them with a stone that she knew would injure and probably kill one of these boys.

Instead of throwing a stone she should have told her parents and that's that and no harm done.

Urine is clean, it has hardly no bacteria/germs if any (I read from grossology a while ago.).

Why won't you let Golfballs have baby goats if that is his attitude towards humans?


:D :D :D ah..okay.. but think about it would you like to get hit with a nice hot bag of urine? That is a little too twisted.

Getting wet and angry is not the same as get bloodied. I'm sorry, but it's not. You don't have a right to self defense against water. I don't see what is so unacceptable about getting wet that makes it ok to injure someone to avoid.

You are going a long way to assume that the kids would have thrown rocks at her. By that standard I can shoot anyone who looks at me funny because for all I know they may have a knife on them. I think if they were planning on hurting her they would have started with the rocks and not the balloons.

All it would take would be one kid running out of ballons early and deciding that this rock would work... why should his friend have all the fun?

Yeah, it's a stretch, but if I was there that's what I'd be thinking. Maybe I watch too much TV or read too many books. -shrug-

All it would take would be one kid running out of ballons early and deciding that this rock would work... why should his friend have all the fun?

Yeah, it's a stretch, but if I was there that's what I'd be thinking. Maybe I watch too much TV or read too many books. -shrug-
Anything COULD happen. But like I said, every suspicious guy I see COULD be planning on robbing me. If I decided to take the tire iron out from under my seat and beat one of them with it, would you think I was justified for that reason?

..that little latina attacked them with a stone that she knew would injure and probably kill one of these boys....You know... you do have the profile to be a LosAngeles Cop.

www.lapdonline.org
or contact the LAPD Recruitment Unit at (800) 954-0321.

The object lesson for those boys is,

"Don't mess with someone who doesn't want to be messed with, because they might get pissed off and hit you in the head with a rock."

It's a good lesson, really. Not that I advocate her throwing the rock, but they did provoke the whole thing. With the rock, odds are it was an unlucky shot and she could have thrown 1000 more rocks and not hurt the kid like that again.

We don't know the whole situation... I'm guessing that if its a group of people screwing around with one weaker person, then it's not playing, it's bullying. This time the person they were bullying lost it and hurt one of them.

If I walked down the street spitting on people who I didn't think were capable of kicking my ass, would you guys feel too sorry for me if one of the people I spat on dropped me?

Anything COULD happen. But like I said, every suspicious guy I see COULD be planning on robbing me. If I decided to take the tire iron out from under my seat and beat one of them with it, would you think I was justified for that reason?
...could be planning to attack you?
Or actually attacking you?

its all the difference in the world.

The boys were assaulting the Girl...NOT Could-be-planning-it.

source?
I say you are "misplacing" the words.
here is 10 dollars betting the TRUE Wording is:

self defense: law allows you to use enough force to stop the attack


Okay..those are better words than i chose. But you are not allowed to use stronger force such as this. She escalated it. She knew it would cause injury. 11 year olds have enough reasoning capablities to understand this. Water ballon vs. Rock... I do believe the rock is more destructive. Yes you can kill in self defense but this is clearly not justified. As I said before she might have had other run ins with the law to go to juve for that. Oh (Kruehlberg?)-who made that racist statement that latinas(os) are naturally violent ...what is your problem? What gives you the right to stereotype a race of people by the actions of one? I find this personally offensive due to my cuban and spanish ancestry of my grandmother, thank you for disrespecting her and as a human being I find it deplorable to have such uncivilized thinking. GROW UP! Any and all human beings are capable of doing stupid things at any given time....hey..you just proved my point.

...You know... you do have the profile to be a LosAngeles Cop.

www.lapdonline.org
or contact the LAPD Recruitment Unit at (800) 954-0321.

thanks much but i do not live in america nor do i have the interest to become a cop.

Hmm... throwing water balloons at an unwilling target is legally assault. So, self defense, and the stupid asshole kids had it coming. I find it too bad the girl didn't have a brick, instead of a rock... or maybe an aluminum baseball bat.

She knew it would cause injury.a stone can kill you...and water balloons can make you blind.

Main difference is she was trying to make them stop...they were assaulting her for fun...she was assaulting them in self-defense.

If she was arrested...the boys shoul've been arrested too.

I agree with you. I dont have any patience for bullies. That wasnt just fun for fun..that was mean and uncalled for. If that had been my son I would not have pressed charges and made him apologize.

could planning to attack you?
Or actually attacking you?

its all the difference in the world.

The boys were assaulting the Girl...NOT Could-be-planning-it.
They were getting her wet. They were not threatening her with substantial bodily harm. The police do not arrest children for childish actions like this that don't pose a danger of real harm. It's not an efficient use of police resources to keep a little girl from getting her feelings hurt.

On the other hand, this girl injured this kid seriously enough that an ambulance was called. That is why the police showed up. So frankly the two actions are not on the same level at all.

They were getting her wet. They were not threatening her with substantial bodily harm. The police do not arrest children for childish actions like this that don't pose a danger of real harm. It's not an efficient use of police resources to keep a little girl from getting her feelings hurt.

On the other hand, this girl injured this kid seriously enough that an ambulance was called. That is why the police showed up. So frankly the two actions are not on the same level at all.


They werent just getting wet... they were bullying. Water balloons are supposed to be given to both sides so that a little war war can begin or a sneak attack on a friend..we all have done that but these SPOILED BRATS were bullying the girl and they should get very little defense. they deserve some punishment too (maybe not as harsh but a scared straight trip might be in order) Those jerks are future thugs.

They werent just getting wet... they were bullying. Water balloons are supposed to be given to both sides so that a little war war can begin or a sneak attack on a friend..we all have done that but these SPOILED BRATS were bullying the girl and they should get very little defense. they deserve some punishment too (maybe not as harsh but a scared straight trip might be in order) Those jerks are future thugs.
Their parents should beat them and send them to their rooms. And if she hadn't caused one of them to be taken away in an ambulance then serious apologies to the little girl would be in order. But I would bet the cops have better things to do.

Chances are those boys will be seeing the back of a police car in their future. I do support the girl being arrested though . They both were wrong. I just dont want people to defend the actions of a bully as child's play. At this age it becomes something different.

really?

Yes, really. Did you fail to read the article?

i had a man come up to me and my mates when we were throwing water bombs at each other, and tell us he would call our parents and phone the police if we didnt stop :eek:

US police pursue girl over stone (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4689459.stm)



Her lawyer accuses the authorities of criminalising childhood behaviour.

"They're treating her like a violent parole offender," Richard Beshwate said. "It's not a felony, it's an 11-year-old acting like an 11-year-old."





Exactly, damn they need to chillllll

I remember having stick fights with friends when i was little, i got a few sticks in the eye and bloody forheads and so did they, noone was ever arrested, this is some crazy shit, she fucked up his head and obviously a punishment is in order but this is absurd.

You're thinking as if she's some criminal waiting to happen.
Well, given the barrio she lives in she probably is a criminal waiting to happen, but the unavoidable outcome of life in Fresno is no reason to send out that many police cars.

I would imagine the police who showed up had no idea what they were up against. Police don't generally get very detailed information about what is going on when they respond to a call. they just hear "felony assault" and a brief description. I know it sounds silly to you, but I would bet a policeman in a dangerous area has seen an 11 year old girl waving a pistol before. Also, if the number of cars bothers you I would note that the police don't say "send three police cars". All police in the area generally respond in a situation like that, whether it be 1 or 5. The helicopter I can't fully explain unless they too just happened to be in the area and went to make sure that everything was ok.

I would imagine the police who showed up had no idea what they were up against. Police don't generally get very detailed information about what is going on when they respond to a call. they just hear "felony assault" and a brief description. I know it sounds silly to you, but I would bet a policeman in a dangerous area has seen an 11 year old girl waving a pistol before. Also, if the number of cars bothers you I would note that the police don't say "send three police cars". All police in the area generally respond in a situation like that, whether it be 1 or 5. The helicopter I can't fully explain unless they too just happened to be in the area and went to make sure that everything was ok.
It depends on Minnesota very detailed description is given everything from suspects height suspected age and weight along with a host of other info

And an “all in area” request is only given when there is a visible weapon or thread of death. And it has to be in a visible threatening way. Otherwise it is single unit unless a backup request is given

Just general rules in the area

In Minnesota from the description even in metro or slum areas one car (two officers) would be the initial responders with possible ambulance

Exactly, damn they need to chillllll

When I was eleven, I was well aware that throwing rocks at people was not acceptable behavior. I was also well aware that I would be severely punished if I did it.

This isn't an "eleven year old being an eleven year old." It is an eleven year old girl (and several boys, probably about the same age) committing assault. They shouldn't get the type of sentence an adult would get, because they are too young to be fully aware of the repercussions - but there certainly should be punishment - for all involved.

It depends on Minnesota very detailed description is given everything from suspects height suspected age and weight along with a host of other info

And an “all in area” request is only given when there is a visible weapon or thread of death. And it has to be in a visible threatening way. Otherwise it is single unit unless a backup request is given

Just general rules in the area

In Minnesota from the description even in metro or slum areas one car (two officers) would be the initial responders with possible ambulance
I am sure that a description was given, I'm just saying that it wouldn't be difficult for the police to imagine that a child would be armed. It's entirely possible that in the confusion, the interpretation of things could get confused.

And you are right about the "all in area" bit, but it also seems likely that if there were three patrol cars nearby (which they should be if they are in a high-crime neighborhood) they would show up to be on hand in case there was some escalation of violence that required backup. For example, if one of the boys decided to avenge his friend's injury, things could get ugly very quickly if the girls father decided to retaliate with something deadlier than a rock. It's good to be prepared after all. I'm not clear why the number of police cars in the area bothers so many people actually.

I am sure that a description was given, I'm just saying that it wouldn't be difficult for the police to imagine that a child would be armed. It's entirely possible that in the confusion, the interpretation of things could get confused.

And you are right about the "all in area" bit, but it also seems likely that if there were three patrol cars nearby (which they should be if they are in a high-crime neighborhood) they would show up to be on hand in case there was some escalation of violence that required backup. For example, if one of the boys decided to avenge his friend's injury, things could get ugly very quickly if the girls father decided to retaliate with something deadlier than a rock. It's good to be prepared after all. I'm not clear why the number of police cars in the area bothers so many people actually.

Hey you seem to think that the next attack would be the girls father? I would see one of the boys picking up the same Rock and throwing it back before your stupid theory happens. Her Father was not around or it would have not happened.

Here's how stupid I think you are:
'Girl's Father magicaly appears out of nowhere armed with pistol and AK-47.'

Hey you seem to think that the next attack would be the girls father? I would see one of the boys picking up the same Rock and throwing it back before your stupid theory happens. Her Father was not around or it would have not happened.

Here's how stupid I think you are:
'Girl's Father magicaly appears out of nowhere armed with pistol and AK-47.'
Don't be an idiot. The police have to be prepared for things like that. Once trouble starts then people do stupid and destructive things. That wouldn't be a justification for them pulling guns or anything but it is for them just to show up in case something like that happened, especially if they were nearby. It's pretty stupid to think that something like that is impossible. How do you know where the girl's father is, internet genius?

Also, you're pretty much an idiot who can't read, seeing as part of the scenario I envisioned involved the boys in question escalating the violence first, leading to further escalation by a parent (or, if you like, an older sibling). Go crawl back in your hole.

there certainly should be punishment - for all involved.I say...a fine of $200 for the parents of each... Boys and girls...

and If they ever do it again...they should be shipped to Singapore :D :D ...so they are properly spanked

It's entirely possible that in the confusion, the interpretation of things could get confused.its all clear now. :D

its all clear now. :D
doh. My writing in the real world is much better than on the internet, I promise.

As far as punishments go, I would bet that the girl does some community service or the like and hopefully learns an important lesson, maybe one that she is able to pass on to others.

The object lesson for those boys is,

"Don't mess with someone who doesn't want to be messed with, because they might get pissed off and hit you in the head with a rock."

It's a good lesson , really.Not that I advocate her throwing the rock, but they did provoke the whole thing. With the rock, odds are it was an unlucky shot and she could have thrown 1000 more rocks and not hurt the kid like that again.

We don't know the whole situation... I'm guessing that if its a group of people screwing around with one weaker person, then it's not playing, it's bullying. This time the person they were bullying lost it and hurt one of them.

If I walked down the street spitting on people who I didn't think were capable of kicking my ass, would you guys feel too sorry for me if one of the people I spat on dropped me?I agree. 100%

Throwing a rock and seriously hurting someone is not an appropriate response to a barrage of water balloons. Those kids were being jerks but after some sobbing she would have been fine.

The more I think about this the more it sounds reasonable. She and everyone else need to know that it is serious and dangerous to hit someone with a rock, and what better way to teach them than to take her off in a police car. Most likely the charges will be dropped and she will go off with a stern warning and a lesson learned. the only thing that makes this sound absurd is the three police cars and the helicopter, but as someone said earlier the police most likely just heard "felony assault" and didn't know whether it was a kid with a rock or a nutcase brandishing a handgun.

Have you read the article? The least objectionable part of the incident was how she was arrested.

doh. My writing in the real world is much better than on the internet, I promise.

As far as punishments go, I would bet that the girl does some community service or the like and hopefully learns an important lesson, maybe one that she is able to pass on to others.

Meanwhile the boys are laughing about the fact she went to jail and loading up for their next victim.

I say...a fine of $200 for the parents of each... Boys and girls...

and If they ever do it again...they should be shipped to Singapore :D :D ...so they are properly spanked
BTW...the girls Parents should sue the Police Dpts..for some $100000.

I would for sure.

Not that I advocate her throwing the rock, but they did provoke the whole thing. With the rock, odds are it was an unlucky shot and she could have thrown 1000 more rocks and not hurt the kid like that again.

Hehe. I know if I tried lobbing the boys with a thousand rocks, I'd probably never hit any of them.

Nope. The boy was just stupid and doesn't know how to dodge small things like rocks. Boys are stupid and that's that.

Cops in California seem to hit the news a lot. Don't take it to your heads that they're all evil, or something, because they do seem to try. That is excluding the white policeman who slammed the head of a black teenager onto the trunk of the police car. But really, cut the PD some slack. You know how many car chases they have to endure?!

Boy, I sure am durned glad ter know our taxpayin' dollers are bein' put ter good use. Those durned 11-year olds are all criminals fer sure. Yep. I say put 'em in front of a firin' squad. That'll teach 'em. Good fer nuthin' whippersnappers... :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

BTW...the girls Parents should sue the Police Dpts..for some $100000.

I would for sure.
I'm not sure I want to live in a country where you can sue the police for arresting you after you admit to a crime.

Meanwhile the boys are laughing about the fact she went to jail and loading up for their next victim.
Well, the one that went to the hospital probably not so much.

That bitch needs to be tried as an adult and then sent to Gitmo. Of course, those boys should be beaten severely for bringing balloons to a friggin rockfight. The Police should all be fired for being such pussies and the city of Fresno should be set to burn and it's ground sown with salt. California should then fall into the ocean for it's sins and America should be immolated in the fires of hell. Or perhaps I am over-reacting.

I'm not sure I want to live in a country where you can sue the police for arresting you after you admit to a crime.what country do you live in ?

America

Bah, if you do this kind of stuff, you deserve to be prosecuted as such.

Kids these days have it way too easy. If somebody threw a rock at me, I'd kick their ass.

That bitch needs to be tried as an adult and then sent to Gitmo. Of course, those boys should be beaten severely for bringing balloons to a friggin rockfight. The Police should all be fired for being such pussies and the city of Fresno should be set to burn and it's ground sown with salt. California should then fall into the ocean for it's sins and America should be immolated in the fires of hell. Or perhaps I am over-reacting.one thing does not make sense....how in hell can you make California fall? :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Hehe. I know if I tried lobbing the boys with a thousand rocks, I'd probably never hit any of them.

Nope. The boy was just stupid and doesn't know how to dodge small things like rocks. Boys are stupid and that's that.

Cops in California seem to hit the news a lot. Don't take it to your heads that they're all evil, or something, because they do seem to try. That is excluding the white policeman who slammed the head of a black teenager onto the trunk of the police car. But really, cut the PD some slack. You know how many car chases they have to endure?!
Not enough. We need more entertainment!

And hush, you all know media coverage of car chases is because we want to watch the guy crash on LIVE TV.

Americathat question was for Jah Bootie...

unless you are Jah Bootie (puppet or something)

I'm not sure I want to live in a country where you can sue the police for arresting you after you admit to a crime.

I'm not sure I want to live in a country where the police spend more time rounding up little girls than dealing with gang violence.

what country do you live in ?
Same country as that little girl.

Well, the one that went to the hospital probably not so much.

Are you kidding? He's probably laughing most of all.

I'm not sure I want to live in a country where the police spend more time rounding up little girls than dealing with gang violence.

They're spending more time on rounding up little girls than gang violence? That's pretty incredible. Our county lockups must look like a miserable Chuck E Cheese.

I'm not sure I want to live in a country where you can sue the police for arresting you after you admit to a crime.you already live in such a country...What are you going to do about it?

you already live in such a country...What are you going to do about it?
Don't be asinine. You can't sue the police for arresting you if they have probable cause, and there's no probable cause like a confession.

Don't be asinine. You can't sue the police for arresting you if they have probable cause, and there's no probable cause like a confession.
asinine?

In this country you can sue whoever you want ...for any reasons you want...

You can even sue McDonald's for spilling your own coffee on yourself...

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE McCOFFEE !!!

so...are you packing already?

asinine?

In this country you can sue whoever you want ...for any reasons you want...

You can even sue McDonald's for spilling your own coffee on yourself...

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE McCOFFEE !!!

so...are you packing already?

The coffee was hotter then normal coffee is the normal thing they say. Ashwell. You can't sue if they have a sign

They're spending more time on rounding up little girls than gang violence? That's pretty incredible. Our county lockups must look like a miserable Chuck E Cheese.

A quote from the article;

"She has since spent five days in detention, in which she was granted one 30 minute visit by her parents, and has spent a month under house arrest."

This is before a trial conviction.

The coffee was hotter then normal coffee is the normal thing they say. so they say...

the bottom line is... In this country you can sue whoever you want...for whatever reasons you feel are fair...
and like I said...If I was her Dad...I would sue the living shit out of the Fresno police.

and there is nothing you can do about it.

so they say...

the bottom line is... In this country you can sue whoever you want...for whatever reasons you feel are fair...
and like I said...If I was her Dad...I would sue the living shit out of the Fresno police.

and there is nothing you can do about it.
Well, here's the thing.

As an attorney, if you bring a case to court that has no basis in law, the court will order you to pay sanctions, basically paying the other side for the time their lawyers spent preparing for your bs case. So generally lawyers don't like to take those cases.

Those other cases you mention all had bases in law. i can go into them if you like, or you could look them up.

Well, here's the thing.

As an attorney, if you bring a case to court that has no basis in law, the court will order you to pay sanctions, basically paying the other side for the time their lawyers spent preparing for your bs case. So generally lawyers don't like to take those cases.they have a much better case than the McCoffee woman you are defending...

much better.

they have a much better case that the McCoffee woman you are defending...

much better.
I wasn't defending her, but if you like.

If you sell a product that is unreasonably dangerous, you are legally liable for damages resulting from its expected use. Well established rule of law.

You cannot sue the police if they do their job according to their authority under the law. An even better established rule of law.

Your knowledge of the law is pretty piss poor. Don't try to use it on someone who actually knows a thing or two about it.

You cannot sue the police if they do their job according to...yes I can.

Your knowledge of the law is pretty piss poor. Don't try to use it on someone who actually knows a thing or two about it."a thing or two" seems pretty acurate.

yes I can.
Well hey, next time you are lawfully arrested, go find a lawyer willing to sue the police for you.

I guess you technically can drive 130 down a residential street, so in that sense you can sue them. This will be a lot more expensive though.

Well hey, next time you are lawfully arrested...lawfull Procedure in whose opinion?
yours?
or the Fresno Police Dept opinion?

lawfully in whose opinion?
yours?
Actually, since you are the one suing, it would be up to you to prove that the arrest wasn't lawful. So why don't you dazzle us counselor?

Actually, since you are the one suing,...OH!!
Oh My GOD!!!
ALLELLUYAH!!

So now i CAN sue the police?

You are not so stubborn after all :D

I just want to know one thing?

How did this dissolve into a 'you can/can't sue the police' debate?

XD

OH!!
Oh My GOD!!!
ALLELLUYAH!!

So now i CAN sue the police?

You are not so stubborn after all :D

I already conceded that you could sue, in the sense that you can drive 70 miles over the speed limit.

Actually, since you are the one suing, it would be up to you to prove that the arrest wasn't lawful. yes indeed.. it would be up to me to prove that any one part of the procedure wasn't lawful.

and more to the point:

it would be up to me to decide if I want to Sue the Fresno Police Dept...for unlawfull Procedure...

they would have to tell the Judge/jury what was the need to arrest her for 5 days...and all the other details of the procedure...

I just want to know one thing?

How did this dissolve into a 'you can/can't sue the police' debate?

XDpost 183.

but...that "can/cannot" debate is pretty much over anyways...you are late to the party :p

http://www.google.com/search?hs=TB8&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22lawsuit+has+been+filed+against+the%22+%22Police+Department%22&btnG=Search&meta=

that "can/cannot" debate is pretty much over anyways...

http://www.google.com/search?hs=TB8&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22lawsuit+has+been+filed+against+the%22+%22Police+Department%22&btnG=Search&meta=
I read the first two. I saw a case of police brutality and employment discrimination. Do you have evidence of either of these?

HAHA crazy americas wanting to sue everyone for everything and anything

"11 year old treated like a dangerous criminal by US police"

Just a bit of clarification here. There is no such thing as "US police." Every State has control over their own police forces, delegating most of the duties to either local community police or county sheriffs.

I read the first two. I saw a case of police brutality and employment discrimination. Do you have evidence of either of these?there is 168 hits...about lawsuits filed against police departments...

so yes citizens can sue Police departments.
get over it.

there is 168 hits...about lawsuits filed against police departments...

so yes citizens can sue Police departments.
get over it.
I never said that. I said you can't sue them for making a lawful arrest. If they arrest you without probable cause, or beat the crap out of you, or discriminate against you for employment then you can sue them. You're going to need some kind of evidence of that though so unless you can point to something like that in these cases then you are not really making your point.

I never said that. I said you can't sue them for making a lawful arrest. the Court is going to decide if her arrest was lawful...If the Full procedure was lawful.

The Courts...get it? the Courts...the Judge..the Jury.
Not you...Not The Fresno Police.

the Courts are going to decide if her arrest was lawful...If the Full procedure was lawful.

Not you.
Not the Fresno Police.
The Courts...get it? the Courts.
I'm just saying this. If you are saying "he should sue" you are saying that based on what you know about the facts in that article, he has some legal reason to sue. That is untrue. If the cops beat her up then he should sue. If it is untrue that the girl admitted to throwing a rock with enough force to require a visit to the emergency room, they had the right to arrest her. Find some reason that the cops did something illegal and then say that they should be sued.

I'm just saying this. If you are saying "he should sue" you are saying that based on what you know about the facts in that article, he has some legal reason to sue..the Police can be sued...If you believe that is not fair...cos the Police "did nothing wrong"...that is your opinion.

But I have news for you...You opinion does NOT matter...all that matters is the opinion of the Jury.

they had the right to arrest her. .they arrested the girl for 5 days... treating her like a violent parole offender...there is no way in hell I would not sue the Living shit out them...

logging off...time to sleep..
Ill be back.

"11 year old treated like a dangerous criminal by US police"

Just a bit of clarification here. There is no such thing as "US police." Every State has control over their own police forces, delegating most of the duties to either local community police or county sheriffs.
You took the words right out of my keyboard, Eut.
It was Californian police. Saying US police almost implies the FBI, which would be really ridiculous.

I'm just saying this. If you are saying "he should sue" you are saying that based on what you know about the facts in that article, he has some legal reason to sue. That is untrue. If the cops beat her up then he should sue. If it is untrue that the girl admitted to throwing a rock with enough force to require a visit to the emergency room, they had the right to arrest her. Find some reason that the cops did something illegal and then say that they should be sued.

The kid who got hit was bleeding. Bleeding doesn't require a trip to an emergency room because bleeding is less important than a broken arm and a broken arm can be fixed with a trip to the doctor.

I am so not going to read through 15 pages...

You know you are in America when the people demand the existence of stupid laws for the sole purpose of lawsuits. It's like we worship lawyers as gods, or something. :rolleyes:

Simplification: Ridiculous. The boys throwing water ballons are bullies at the best, and future gang members at the worst.

the Police can be sued...If you believe that is not fair...cos the Police "did nothing wrong"...that is your opinion.

But I have news for you...You opinion does NOT matter...all that matters is the opinion of the Jury.
Actually, what matters is the law. The jury decides facts. Unless they can allege facts that we do not know about and can allege something that is not indicated by that article, a jury will never hear this case. It doesn't matter if what they did was right, it matters if it's legal. Everything that article says that they did is legal. Offer me some proof that it's not and I will be happy to change my mind.

The kid who got hit was bleeding. Bleeding doesn't require a trip to an emergency room because bleeding is less important than a broken arm and a broken arm can be fixed with a trip to the doctor.
Well, it says hospital and there was an ambulance. I assumed emergency room but I could be wrong. And bleeding in the right amount and from the right area is much more serious and immediate than a broken arm, and I'm pretty sure you would not make an appointment and wait several hours if your arm was broken. I dunno, maybe you would. Most people don't.

Well, it says hospital and there was an ambulance. I assumed emergency room but I could be wrong. And bleeding in the right amount and from the right area is much more serious and immediate than a broken arm, and I'm pretty sure you would not make an appointment and wait several hours if your arm was broken. I dunno, maybe you would. Most people don't.

Actually, we don't know the extent of the injury. Its entirely possible that it could be something that requires stitches or something that a bandaid would solve and the ambulance was called by overexcited people.

Maybe it was a face hit? Facial bleeding always looks worst than it really is. Unless of course you happen to be shot or have your head smashed under a heavy weight. Then it usually is as bad as it looks.

What the fuck did they need a helicopter for? That's what I don't understand.

a jury will never hear this case.again...that is up to the Court...

NOT up to you.

Actually, I am the judge in this case and have already made my decision.

How's your strawman now?!

Too many details are left out. Did the 911 caller make it sound like a group of kids were fighting? If one officer shows up and is greatly outnumbered by kids and adults, then they'd have a serious escalation problem.

I can reason fighting water with water, but a stone? That is a little too much. But I see too much hype over it by the police. But then again, water balloons don't hurt much, or at all, and she threw the stone with intention to maim(or something). It all starts in childhood...
Then I should be up on assault charges for all the terrible things I did to my brothers, the fights I had with my cousins and with other kids all through school. Christ, for all that I should be serving life in some maximum security prison!

anda a la puta jolt!WOUAHAHAHA...

here...have some of this...
*pases her the peace pipe*

Actually, I am the judge in this case and have already made my decision.

How's your strawman now?!Let me guess...

Bush appointed you...while the unsuspecting US Senate was taking a collective piss break.. :D

I'm signing a permanent injunction on continuing this debate, considering that we are both arguing completely different things and I don't really see it going anywhere interesting.

I am not going to wade through the 16 pages of this but I just saw a news blip.

She isn't going to jail.

However, that rock she threw was rather big; I think bigger then a baseball. It put a 1 inch gash in a kids head......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4744025.stm

Probation and having to stare down the boy she hit. Could be worse.

I am not going to wade through the 16 pages of this but I just saw a news blip.

She isn't going to jail.

However, that rock she threw was rather big; I think bigger then a baseball. It put a 1 inch gash in a kids head......

All this fuss over one little girl...

Its easy to understand,
If someone attacks someone with the intent to do harm then they should be treated as such, no matter what age they are. Letting kids do it is no excuse and they should be setting the example.

All this fuss over one little girl...

Oh I know. People are funny that way.

I am just pointing out more detail. When I heard rock; I imagined a small rock.

It paint's a different picture when you see the one she threw.

Oh well. The story will disappear soon.....

I think she had the right idea. When someone is pissing you off for no reason, and they dont look like they will stop, then make them stop. I say she should have used more rocks

Alright, after wading through this topic, here's my view point.

The boys that were pelting her and her brother were assaulting her. Why? Who knows. Maybe they're racist, maybe they don't like her because of some stupid reason, maybe because they're just plain jackasses. Those water balloons can hurt at the right speed and angle, so they CAN be used as dangerous weapons. Not life-threatening, but quite dangerous.

So, the girl has the right to defend herself. She does so. What's she going to use? Fight water with water? No. Those water balloons will explode on impact, rendering them useless. There's nothing available but a rock. Now remember, this is an eleven year old. She's being attacked, and is undoubtedly angry and embarrassed. Humans do not react well to being attacked, child, teen, or adult. So what's the first thing that comes to her mind? Simple, a natural instinct called "revenge". So she throws the rock. She gets lucky and makes the boy bleed.

Cops show up. Now, I do not protest the forces involved(except the helicopter...). It was a dangerous area, and the police will NOT take chances. However, I DO protest her being treated like a criminal. She used self-defense. There was nothing available for defense but a rock. Therefore, she used the rock.

Again. She's an eleven year old. More importantly, she's human. Humans resort to violence when attacked, their minds cloud with rage, and they revert to their natural instinct; do whatever it takes to survive and stop the attack.

Now, do I think she should escape punishment? Hell no. She needs to be taught that she did not need to do that, and that she could've killed the boy. However, the boys ALSO deserve to be punished, because they assaulted her with clearly malicious intent, and provoked her into retaliating. Both parties involved should be given the same punishment; the girl because she retaliated with a life threatening weapon, but also the boys for provoking her and assaulting her for "fun" or whatever crap excuse they come up with.

Summary: The girl did what she needed to do. Defend herself with whatever she had. The boy deserved it and should be punished like her. The police should be commended for responding quickly and efficiently, taking no chances(though the helicopter was overkill...) in such a dangerous area, but that they should not treat her like a murderer.

But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

If she has't been a bully to the boys in the past, and she just picked up the closest thing to her to ward them off, then she was right. If she has been an asshole to them in the past holding them down, kicking their asses.. then I guess she got what she desereved. Either way, there should not be no jail time... or any record(the parents/gaurdians should be able to handle this), wait til the little assholes get 13 14 or 15 to start slapping charges on them if the parents/gaurdians aren't going to handle the situation. At least one of the kids kin folk/gaurdian should be outside on a porch, yard, street (near and in sight distance of where the kids are at) looking out for the littles ones all the time, since it's seems to be such a big deal to knock one in the head after being pelted by numerous water baloons. If the kid or parents are that sensitive, then they should've been keeping an eye out for trouble in the first place.

US police pursue girl over stone (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4689459.stm)




Un-freaking-believable. :mad:


I spent a night in Fresno once. Wouldn't expect differently.

How about arresting those boys throwing water balloons for inciting civil unrest? :D

I still can't believe that anyone thinks that getting hit with water balloons justifies slinging a two pound jagged edged rock with intent to injure someone. Water balloons get you wet. It's annoying but it doesn't give you the right to do serious bodily injury. A two pound rock could very easily kill someone.

What the hell kind of wimpy kids call the cops because someone threw a rock at them?

I used to get rocks, snowballs, mud et c thrown at me when I was in school and I stopped telling the teacher after a while.

Furthermore, if spitting on someone is assault, I'm sure throwing water balloons outside of a water balloon fight is too, it was obviously self defense on her part and the boys should be charged with assault since they made this a police matter when it should really just be a matter between parents and their children.