I’ve come to the point with this that I very much agree the kid deserved punishment. This wasn’t one isolated act of kidliness (new word!), it was a slew of bullyism. And it’s a sad fact, but if the parents wont take care of it…well, consider it taken care of. He probably wont do that again.
Strange, I remember spitballs becoming passe at oh;
around;
say;
err
5 or so.
The kids got off very lightly. I would put them in an Oz-type prision for three-five years. “Boys will be boys” indeed.
About pressing charges: It is always the government’s decision whether to prosecute a criminal case or not. However, in many cases the government will only prosecute if the victim or victim’s family are willing to testify in court. The term “pressing charges” gets thrown around a lot, but it doesn’t have any actual legal force. Now, if one party sues another, then you have a civil case rather than a criminal case, and the rules are different.
Speaking from (2 1/2+ decade old) experience, spitballs generally weren’t formed into darts (not that I knew of). Unless they showed the actual weapon on your morning news, I’d be as inclined to believe it is a shock piece ("Look How Dangerous This Could Be!) as to believe this is actually what was used.
I don’t want to downplay the injury. Nor, if these children are persistent, unrepentent bullies, do I want to absolve them or their parents of all blame. Especially the parents, as far too many parents do, exist in a constant state of denial [:cough: :cough: my ex- :cough" :cough:] concerning their childrens actions.
However, children will push and shove and do other juvenile things where they don’t see the potential bad outcomes of their actions. Playgrounds are a potential deathtrap; add all the pushing, shoving, running and I’m surprised so many kids make it into adulthood. I just don’t want to see that kind of horseplay become grounds for legal action. I don’t know enough about the case to understand why this transcends normal childhood idiocy to the point of felony, and the news certainly doesn’t help with the details.
Next time you infer that I’m a liar, don’t infer it, pal.
FTR: As I said above, the thing was shown on the news.
At malicious intent. If this guy really intended to blind the guy, then a felony charge is appropiate. If not, then it’s not.
pldennison
What makes you think there was a jury?
Here’s a line from the article I found rather odd:
What, the First Amendment doesn’t apply to defendants?
The parents aren’t the defendants; their two sons are.
Another write up: http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/3419836.htm
Including some further commentary about the poor misunderstood spitballer: “…senior district attorney inspector Mark Ernst told the (20) neighbors’ stories, including one in which one brother took a water bottle from an elderly woman and dumped the liquid on her. Jeffrey’s attorney, Carin Johnson, argued that he was under strict home supervision by the probation department at the time.” Strict home supervision. Yeah, that whipped the little shits into shape, you betcha!
Stephen has learned respect for diverse viewpoints: "Ramirez also convicted Stephen last month of one count of misdemeanor battery, because during the Sept. 5, 2001, incident at Walnut Creek Intermediate School, he went down a line of classmates hitting those who said they didn’t like the Oakland Raiders.’
The boy’s resume of public service was noted; “School officials said Stephen had been disciplined 49 times and Jeffrey 28 times.”
Yet Ma and Pa Figueroa just figure their sweet baby boys are just acting like young chaps will: " A child can’t just be a child anymore, mother Yvette Figueroa testified"
Sez the judge: “Mr. and Mrs. Figueroa, you’re in a great deal of denial about your children.”
Well, Yvette will have to find some other insult to bleat about: the kids are now wards of the court. Hope she’s as understanding about youthful pranks when her sonny boys are getting reamed with hockey sticks in Juvie.
(fade in: juvie court, May 2, 2003: some other punk’s mom: “But my Petey didn’t mean to perforate Jeffrey’s colon!)”
note:writer does not condone the anal assault of minors in custody. A swift wack up the head, maybe 
The parents aren’t the defendants; their two sons are.
Another write up: http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/3419836.htm
Including some further commentary about the poor misunderstood spitballer: “…senior district attorney inspector Mark Ernst told the (20) neighbors’ stories, including one in which one brother took a water bottle from an elderly woman and dumped the liquid on her. Jeffrey’s attorney, Carin Johnson, argued that he was under strict home supervision by the probation department at the time.” Strict home supervision. Yeah, that whipped the little shits into shape, you betcha!
Stephen has learned respect for diverse viewpoints: "Ramirez also convicted Stephen last month of one count of misdemeanor battery, because during the Sept. 5, 2001, incident at Walnut Creek Intermediate School, he went down a line of classmates hitting those who said they didn’t like the Oakland Raiders.’
The boy’s resume of public service was noted; “School officials said Stephen had been disciplined 49 times and Jeffrey 28 times.”
Yet Ma and Pa Figueroa just figure their sweet baby boys are just acting like young chaps will: " A child can’t just be a child anymore, mother Yvette Figueroa testified"
Sez the judge: “Mr. and Mrs. Figueroa, you’re in a great deal of denial about your children.”
Well, Yvette will have to find some other insult to bleat about: the kids are now wards of the court. Hope she’s as understanding about youthful pranks when her sonny boys are getting reamed with hockey sticks in Juvie.
(fade in: juvie court, May 2, 2003: some other punk’s mom: “But my Petey didn’t mean to perforate Jeffrey’s colon!)”
note:writer does not condone the anal assault of minors in custody. A swift whack up the head, maybe
The foilball (NOT spitball) was not an isolated incident, it seems Stevie and Jeffy are consistently little shits.
Another write up: http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/3419836.htm
Including some further commentary about the poor misunderstood spitballer: “…senior district attorney inspector Mark Ernst told the (20) neighbors’ stories, including one in which one brother took a water bottle from an elderly woman and dumped the liquid on her. Jeffrey’s attorney, Carin Johnson, argued that he was under strict home supervision by the probation department at the time.” Strict home supervision. Yeah, that whipped the little shits into shape, you betcha!
Stephen has learned respect for diverse viewpoints: "Ramirez also convicted Stephen last month of one count of misdemeanor battery, because during the Sept. 5, 2001, incident at Walnut Creek Intermediate School, he went down a line of classmates hitting those who said they didn’t like the Oakland Raiders.’
The boy’s resume of public service was noted; “School officials said Stephen had been disciplined 49 times and Jeffrey 28 times.”
Yet Ma and Pa Figueroa just figure their sweet baby boys are just acting like young chaps will: " A child can’t just be a child anymore, mother Yvette Figueroa testified"
Sez the judge: “Mr. and Mrs. Figueroa, you’re in a great deal of denial about your children.” (The judge makes further commentary about the parenting style of Mr and Mrs F, it’s a lovely read.)
Well, Yvette will have to find some other insult to bleat about: the kids are now wards of the court. Hope she’s as understanding about youthful pranks when her sonny boys are getting reamed with hockey sticks in Juvie.
(fade in: juvie court, May 2, 2003: some other punk’s mom: “But my Petey didn’t mean to perforate Jeffrey’s colon!)”
note:writer does not condone the anal assault of minors in custody. A swift whack up the head, maybe
Many apologies for the editing induced Tourettes.
Many apologies for the satirical use of “Tourette’s”, no insult intended to the sufferers of said condition, fine and noble people all.
Annie
Even more reason to question the statement.
:rolleyes:
Absent any explicit statement that the defendants waived their right to a jury trial, it is reasonable to assume that a jury was involved, unless one is a moron.
If it gives you comfort, replace the word “jury” with either the phrase “jury or judge” or “trier of fact.”
:wally
Ryan: UK example. Narwaz Sharif, student, beaten and severely injured by a bunch of footballers. Very expensive trial is proceeding. Sharif’s father gives an interview to the Mirror newspaper, which it duly prints. Judge rules that the article is prejudicial, and declares a mistrial. Very expensive trial flushed, Mirror fined lots of money. Might it not be this sort of thing be what the judge is annoyed about?
The article stated that the defendant was sentenced to juvenile hall, which implies that he was tried as a juvenile, which, AFAIK, means that he was not afforded the option of a jury trial.
Dead Badger:
Unless there are more facts to explain the fine, that seems like a violation of free speech rights, and I hope that such a thing could not happen here.
You’re right. California juvenile offenders do not have a right to a jury trial. I rescind my comment.