CA - Joanna Ramos, 10, dies of head injury from after-school fight, 24 Feb 2012

[LinasK]

Yes, and Joanna intended to harm her, over a boy. The article below is interesting, and the mother's viewpoint that it could have just as easily been the other girl who died.

So what's typical to charge two 11 year olds with, for "tussling", as this article says? Neither girl was on the ground, and the encounter lasted about a minute, and "wasn't especially violent, and no weapons were used".

Since we don't have any details at all, even whether the family's feeling that a boy was involved, it's hard to know what to say. Who started it? Who ended it? Since the mother herself doesn't want to hear any of the details it seems unlikely they will ever be made public.

I'm asking this since I don't know - is it typical to charge 11 year old girls who had a mutual "tussell" with a crime? Had it gone the way it was clearly intended - that both girls walk away a little scratched up - would there have been any charges filed? What part does "intent" play into this?

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/no-charges-in-death-1421226.html

It's not "tussling", it's fighting! Joanna didn't need to die! And yes, I would feel the same way if the situation was reversed.

F.Y.I. I was pushed into a fight in 6th grade at school, during school hours and not allowed to escape. I did NOT punch back. The crowd was expecting me to be pummeled. I just hung onto this girl so she could not attack me.

 

[JeannaT]

It's not "tussling", it's fighting! Joanna didn't need to die! And yes, I would feel the same way if the situation was reversed.

Well, since you don't know either one of these girls, I would assume you'd feel the same way if the other girl died instead of Joanna. I wasn't the one who coined the word "tussling", it was the newspaper reporter, btw.

I just find it interesting that the mother feels like I do in this one - this is horrible, a great loss, but an accident and it could have gone the other way. The mother doesn't want charges against the other little girl, which I think is hugely generous on the part of the mom - but the right thing to do, IMHO. It won't bring her precious daughter back.

And LE says no crime was committed. Apparently what they were doing - a playground fight mutually agreed on by two similar ability children - wasn't a crime. And of course, LE is privy to all the details that none of the rest of us know.

 

[LinasK]

Well, since you don't know either one of these girls, I would assume you'd feel the same way if the other girl died instead of Joanna. I wasn't the one who coined the word "tussling", it was the newspaper reporter, btw.

I just find it interesting that the mother feels like I do in this one - this is horrible, a great loss, but an accident and it could have gone the other way. The mother doesn't want charges against the other little girl, which I think is hugely generous on the part of the mom - but the right thing to do, IMHO. It won't bring her precious daughter back.

And LE says no crime was committed. Apparently what they were doing - a playground fight mutually agreed on by two similar ability children - wasn't a crime. And of course, LE is privy to all the details that none of the rest of us know.

This death was no accident, IMO, it was unnecessarily caused by violence! Violence is not the answer.

 

[JeannaT]

This death was no accident, IMO, it was unnecessarily caused by violence! Violence is not the answer.

I certainly agree that violence is not the answer, and maybe this case can be used to educate children that fighting, even if the intent is to cause a few scratches, can unexpectedly result in more serious injuries.

I don't think, and obviously LE doesn't either - that either of these girls meant to seriously injure each other. This is the kind of injury that could easily happen on the soccer field or wrestling mat, and it's sad.

My son played goalie, and was kicked in the face a couple times going for the ball, which resulted in the opposing team players being ejected for the season (roughing the goalie in the goal box is a serious penalty). I wouldn't think those incidents would have caused his death, though, and thankfully they didn't.

Criminal charges aren't the answer to every tragedy, IMHO.

 

[jjenny]

I'm just sayin' - sometimes these fluke things happen, although both girls walked away after the fight and no one in her after school care even noticed she was injured.

It was a blood clot, that later developed from a small brain bleed, that killed her - not blunt force trauma.

When you look at this:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c3#/video/world/2012/05/07/start-russian-man-flipped.cnn

And this, that happened last week:

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/austin/man-injured-after-being-hit-by-bus

It's astounding that both young men are fine - apparently each has a simple bone fracture.

It just seems sometimes life is so fragile, sometimes so resilient.

???? I don't know where you got your info, but it doesn't appear to be accurate. Child's death was ruled homicide, and the cause was "blunt force trauma to the head."
"The coroner's office labeled the case a homicide and said Joanna died of blunt force trauma to the head. The autopsy report remained under a security hold Wednesday, said Assistant Chief Coroner Ed Winter."
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/no-charges-in-death-1421226.html

 

[jjenny]

Well, since you don't know either one of these girls, I would assume you'd feel the same way if the other girl died instead of Joanna. I wasn't the one who coined the word "tussling", it was the newspaper reporter, btw.

I just find it interesting that the mother feels like I do in this one - this is horrible, a great loss, but an accident and it could have gone the other way. The mother doesn't want charges against the other little girl, which I think is hugely generous on the part of the mom - but the right thing to do, IMHO. It won't bring her precious daughter back.

And LE says no crime was committed. Apparently what they were doing - a playground fight mutually agreed on by two similar ability children - wasn't a crime. And of course, LE is privy to all the details that none of the rest of us know.

I don't see anything to suggest that the mother didn't want charges. This article says the mother was disappointed and surprised, but feels there is nothing she can't do.

'"I'm disappointed and at the same time sad, but what can I do?" she said, adding that she was surprised by the D.A.'s decision."
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/18/local/la-me-0419-girl-fight-20120419

 

[jjenny]

This death was no accident, IMO, it was unnecessarily caused by violence! Violence is not the answer.

Death was ruled homicide due to blunt force trauma to the head.
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/no-charges-in-death-1421226.html

 

[JeannaT]

I don't see anything to suggest that the mother didn't want charges. This article says the mother was disappointed and surprised, but feels there is nothing she can't do.

'"I'm disappointed and at the same time sad, but what can I do?" she said, adding that she was surprised by the D.A.'s decision."
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/18/local/la-me-0419-girl-fight-20120419

In this article, she says she's not angry at the other girl, that it could have been the other girl instead of Joanna who died.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/no-charges-in-death-1421226.html

 

[jjenny]

In this article, she says she's not angry at the other girl, that it could have been the other girl instead of Joanna who died.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/no-charges-in-death-1421226.html

She might not be angry, it doesn't mean she didn't want charges.
I mean, there are people who say they "forgive" it doesn't mean they want the offender to go free.

 

[TexasRanger]

More proof of how mean pre-teen/teenage girls can be.

I can see the trial getting real messy, real fast if there are any pre-existing racial issues (someone mentioned that they *might* be diff races).

The other girl should be required to attend Anger Management counseling at the very least.

 

[al66pine]

No charges? Can anyone see this possiblity in a few years?
"Come'on, Prinicpal Skinner, Chief Wiggams, this time I just knocked the girl unconscious, blacked her eyes, broke her arm, and ruptured her spleen, and smashed her front teeth.
I didn't even kill anybody this time. Let me go home now."
Cd happen in two minutes, whether the other girl agreed to fight or not.

Media reports this was not spontaneous or spur of the moment.
It was not accidental, like a kid losing control of her bike and somehow landing on top of a pedestrian,
somehow kneeing her, resulting in her death.
If that had bn the situation, easier to understand no charges.

Here, both girls planned and agreed to fight at later time. And did.

Is the now-dead girl's agreement to future fight, her "consent" to be hit?
Maybe.
Does her agreement to fight, her showing up for the fight, and participating in the fight, then excuse her actions from criminal law or juvie consequences?
Maybe not, but st. can't bring charges -- she's dead, the ultimate punishment/consequence for being involved in assault & battery (the very actions she planned, agreed to).

One of the reasons crim/juvie law has consequences for planned fights (assault & battery) is ----
deter people from planning and participating such fights (A & B).
One reason for crim/juvie law re fights (A & B) is because they can --- result in serious injury or death. Precisely what happened here.

DETERRENCE?
Would crim/juvie charges against thekiller deter her from planning & participating in future fights?
I think so, at least deter her more than not charging her.

Would crim/juvie charges against the killer deter others from planning & participating in future fights?
I think so, at least deter others more than not charging her.
"I'm not gonna fight. Holy cow, look what happened to Jane Doe."
Not going to deter everybody, just some people.

Others posted that the girl will live the rest of her life, knowing that she killed another person, that she will suffer,
so criminal-juvie law procedures are not approp. or needed.
Maybe so.
I think, people w. a conscience wd suffer for the rest of their lives from being involved in a fight like this, resulting in a death.

Fact: she knows she planned to fight, did so, landing at least one brutal blow,
which resulted in another person's death, and suffers no crim/juvie law effects.
.........................................................................................
Rather than seeing the state's no-charge decision as an act of mercy, one time-only-forgiveness,
is it possible that this girl sees it as license to continue the same behaviors and actions that resulted in the death of another person? Perhaps encouragement.
Some people - even 11 y/o's - could see it that way.

Maybe the state gathered plenty of info about this 11 y/o, her family, friends, school, etc. and concluded this girl would suffer with knowledge that she killed someone, and based the no-charge decision on that.
..............................................................................................
On W/S we see people who have killed others and do not suffer so much as a twinge of guilt about it, until the crim-juvie law catches up with them. Even then, sometimes their only remorse is in getting caught, charged & convicted, not in having committed their criminal acts.

 

[HMSHood]

No charges? Can anyone see this possiblity in a few years?
"Come'on, Prinicpal Skinner, Chief Wiggams, this time I just knocked the girl unconscious, blacked her eyes, broke her arm, and ruptured her spleen, and smashed her front teeth.
I didn't even kill anybody this time. Let me go home now."
Cd happen in two minutes, whether the other girl agreed to fight or not.

Media reports this was not spontaneous or spur of the moment.
It was not accidental, like a kid losing control of her bike and somehow landing on top of a pedestrian,
somehow kneeing her, resulting in her death.
If that had bn the situation, easier to understand no charges.

Here, both girls planned and agreed to fight at later time. And did.

Is the now-dead girl's agreement to future fight, her "consent" to be hit?
Maybe.
Does her agreement to fight, her showing up for the fight, and participating in the fight, then excuse her actions from criminal law or juvie consequences?
Maybe not, but st. can't bring charges -- she's dead, the ultimate punishment/consequence for being involved in assault & battery (the very actions she planned, agreed to).

One of the reasons crim/juvie law has consequences for planned fights (assault & battery) is ----
deter people from planning and participating such fights (A & B).
One reason for crim/juvie law re fights (A & B) is because they can --- result in serious injury or death. Precisely what happened here.

DETERRENCE?
Would crim/juvie charges against thekiller deter her from planning & participating in future fights?
I think so, at least deter her more than not charging her.

Would crim/juvie charges against the killer deter others from planning & participating in future fights?
I think so, at least deter others more than not charging her.
"I'm not gonna fight. Holy cow, look what happened to Jane Doe."
Not going to deter everybody, just some people.

Others posted that the girl will live the rest of her life, knowing that she killed another person, that she will suffer,
so criminal-juvie law procedures are not approp. or needed.
Maybe so.
I think, people w. a conscience wd suffer for the rest of their lives from being involved in a fight like this, resulting in a death.

Fact: she knows she planned to fight, did so, landing at least one brutal blow,
which resulted in another person's death, and suffers no crim/juvie law effects.
.........................................................................................
Rather than seeing the state's no-charge decision as an act of mercy, one time-only-forgiveness,
is it possible that this girl sees it as license to continue the same behaviors and actions that resulted in the death of another person? Perhaps encouragement.
Some people - even 11 y/o's - could see it that way.

Maybe the state gathered plenty of info about this 11 y/o, her family, friends, school, etc. and concluded this girl would suffer with knowledge that she killed someone, and based the no-charge decision on that.
..............................................................................................
On W/S we see people who have killed others and do not suffer so much as a twinge of guilt about it, until the crim-juvie law catches up with them. Even then, sometimes their only remorse is in getting caught, charged & convicted, not in having committed their criminal acts.

Sounds like a crime to me.

 

[al66pine]

Some posters are saying -- chg's are not approp.

What if the girl, instead of dying, had 'just' gotten a broken arm from the fight, gone to ER, bn. patched up, & fully recovered, no perm effects?

Would a crim-juvie battery-type chg. be approp then?
Maybe something w. short sentence? Maybe anger mngmt classes? Maybe dispute resolutn classes?

If not, why not?
Just an 'accident'?
Appears to me, the girl intended to hurt her with knee-punch to face.
It was not an accident.
The girl intended bodily harm, prob'ly did not intend perm injury or death.

Or what about school expelling her? Or suspending her?
(if she had not moved to other school)

So, if there sh/be consequences for less-than-lethal injury, why sh. there not be consequences for causing a death?

Serious crim/juvie chg's like homicide (manslaughter or murder) are not necessarily the approp. chg's here.

But if 3rd party/others (crim? juvie? school? who?) impose no consequences for her planning to fight and then fighting, what effect does this have on her (co-)fighter & the other kids at that school?

As I posted above at #51, I hope the prosecutor had lots of solid info about the girl and her background, before making the no-chg decision. Maybe so.

Tragic all the way around.

 

[LinasK]

No charges? Can anyone see this possiblity in a few years?
"Come'on, Prinicpal Skinner, Chief Wiggams, this time I just knocked the girl unconscious, blacked her eyes, broke her arm, and ruptured her spleen, and smashed her front teeth.
I didn't even kill anybody this time. Let me go home now."
Cd happen in two minutes, whether the other girl agreed to fight or not.

Media reports this was not spontaneous or spur of the moment.
It was not accidental, like a kid losing control of her bike and somehow landing on top of a pedestrian,
somehow kneeing her, resulting in her death.
If that had bn the situation, easier to understand no charges.

Here, both girls planned and agreed to fight at later time. And did.

Is the now-dead girl's agreement to future fight, her "consent" to be hit?
Maybe.
Does her agreement to fight, her showing up for the fight, and participating in the fight, then excuse her actions from criminal law or juvie consequences?
Maybe not, but st. can't bring charges -- she's dead, the ultimate punishment/consequence for being involved in assault & battery (the very actions she planned, agreed to).

One of the reasons crim/juvie law has consequences for planned fights (assault & battery) is ----
deter people from planning and participating such fights (A & B).
One reason for crim/juvie law re fights (A & B) is because they can --- result in serious injury or death. Precisely what happened here.

DETERRENCE?
Would crim/juvie charges against thekiller deter her from planning & participating in future fights?
I think so, at least deter her more than not charging her.

Would crim/juvie charges against the killer deter others from planning & participating in future fights?
I think so, at least deter others more than not charging her.
"I'm not gonna fight. Holy cow, look what happened to Jane Doe."
Not going to deter everybody, just some people.

Others posted that the girl will live the rest of her life, knowing that she killed another person, that she will suffer,
so criminal-juvie law procedures are not approp. or needed.
Maybe so.
I think, people w. a conscience wd suffer for the rest of their lives from being involved in a fight like this, resulting in a death.

Fact: she knows she planned to fight, did so, landing at least one brutal blow,
which resulted in another person's death, and suffers no crim/juvie law effects.
.........................................................................................
Rather than seeing the state's no-charge decision as an act of mercy, one time-only-forgiveness,
is it possible that this girl sees it as license to continue the same behaviors and actions that resulted in the death of another person? Perhaps encouragement.
Some people - even 11 y/o's - could see it that way.

Maybe the state gathered plenty of info about this 11 y/o, her family, friends, school, etc. and concluded this girl would suffer with knowledge that she killed someone, and based the no-charge decision on that.
..............................................................................................
On W/S we see people who have killed others and do not suffer so much as a twinge of guilt about it, until the crim-juvie law catches up with them. Even then, sometimes their only remorse is in getting caught, charged & convicted, not in having committed their criminal acts.

I agree with you that this was assault and battery and not "accidental". This was a death that was needless and could have been prevented. It should not be tolerated because it was planned.

 

[DollyPardonMe]

No charges? Can anyone see this possiblity in a few years?
"Come'on, Prinicpal Skinner, Chief Wiggams, this time I just knocked the girl unconscious, blacked her eyes, broke her arm, and ruptured her spleen, and smashed her front teeth.
I didn't even kill anybody this time. Let me go home now."
Cd happen in two minutes, whether the other girl agreed to fight or not.

Media reports this was not spontaneous or spur of the moment.
It was not accidental, like a kid losing control of her bike and somehow landing on top of a pedestrian,
somehow kneeing her, resulting in her death.
If that had bn the situation, easier to understand no charges.

Here, both girls planned and agreed to fight at later time. And did.

Is the now-dead girl's agreement to future fight, her "consent" to be hit?
Maybe.
Does her agreement to fight, her showing up for the fight, and participating in the fight, then excuse her actions from criminal law or juvie consequences?
Maybe not, but st. can't bring charges -- she's dead, the ultimate punishment/consequence for being involved in assault & battery (the very actions she planned, agreed to).

One of the reasons crim/juvie law has consequences for planned fights (assault & battery) is ----
deter people from planning and participating such fights (A & B).
One reason for crim/juvie law re fights (A & B) is because they can --- result in serious injury or death. Precisely what happened here.

DETERRENCE?
Would crim/juvie charges against thekiller deter her from planning & participating in future fights?
I think so, at least deter her more than not charging her.

Would crim/juvie charges against the killer deter others from planning & participating in future fights?
I think so, at least deter others more than not charging her.
"I'm not gonna fight. Holy cow, look what happened to Jane Doe."
Not going to deter everybody, just some people.

Others posted that the girl will live the rest of her life, knowing that she killed another person, that she will suffer,
so criminal-juvie law procedures are not approp. or needed.
Maybe so.
I think, people w. a conscience wd suffer for the rest of their lives from being involved in a fight like this, resulting in a death.

Fact: she knows she planned to fight, did so, landing at least one brutal blow,
which resulted in another person's death, and suffers no crim/juvie law effects.
.........................................................................................
Rather than seeing the state's no-charge decision as an act of mercy, one time-only-forgiveness,
is it possible that this girl sees it as license to continue the same behaviors and actions that resulted in the death of another person? Perhaps encouragement.
Some people - even 11 y/o's - could see it that way.

Maybe the state gathered plenty of info about this 11 y/o, her family, friends, school, etc. and concluded this girl would suffer with knowledge that she killed someone, and based the no-charge decision on that.
..............................................................................................
On W/S we see people who have killed others and do not suffer so much as a twinge of guilt about it, until the crim-juvie law catches up with them. Even then, sometimes their only remorse is in getting caught, charged & convicted, not in having committed their criminal acts.

Such a tragic story all around. I think two girls decided to fight. They stopped, went home, one died. I don't think either one EVER expected it to get this far. They are just above the age of accountability, if that! Will this girl ever fight again? I'd like to think with the information the state received they saw a little girl that was in over her head and will never do anything like this again. At least, this is all we can hope for!

 

[Sonya610]

As to whether it was "just a tussle" or something more serious I would ask a few questions:

1) Did either girl have a history of violence and/or bullying others? I do think smashing a knee into an opponents face during a "tussle" seems quite extreme and makes me wonder what the girls background was.

2) Were these girls matched size wise? The victim was 10, the perp was 11. The differences in size can be huge especially if they are from different ethnic groups. A 10 year old can be a spindly frail little thing, while some 11 year olds are sexually developed, more mature, and carry a LOT more weight (plus look years older).

3) Who's idea was it to fight and did either/both have a history of it? Some articles say the victim didn't want to fight, was the other a bully that pushed other students into it and the victim went along trying to prove she wasn't afraid?

 

[JeannaT]

As to whether it was "just a tussle" or something more serious I would ask a few questions:

1) Did either girl have a history of violence and/or bullying others? I do think smashing a knee into an opponents face during a "tussle" seems quite extreme and makes me wonder what the girls background was.

2) Were these girls matched size wise? The victim was 10, the perp was 11. The differences in size can be huge especially if they are from different ethnic groups. A 10 year old can be a spindly frail little thing, while some 11 year olds are sexually developed, more mature, and carry a LOT more weight (plus look years older).

3) Who's idea was it to fight and did either/both have a history of it? Some articles say the victim didn't want to fight, was the other a bully that pushed other students into it and the victim went along trying to prove she wasn't afraid?

Those are all good questions, and if I had to guess LE had the answers before making the decision that no crime was committed, and charges weren't warranted. I could be wrong, but that's just my take.

 

[al66pine]

Rereading the posts, I think I see some underlying, but unexpressed assumptns in pro-chg posts and anti-chg posts.

Maybe anti-chg ppl assume that the prosecutor wd bring manslaughter or murder chgs, not assault & battery chg? Comments, anti-chg'ers?

Maybe pro-chg ppl think prsctr decided no-chg based on "she's suffered enough" theory? Comments, any pro-chg'ers?

 

[Belinda]

I think she should have been charged simply for the fact that the way she injured the other girl was not a typical little girl fight move. She knew what she was doing. I'm 50 and it wouldn't even occur to me to do that to someone. This kid is street smart and I have no doubt she will soon be bragging about how she killed someone and got away with it. This girl will be in trouble in the future, I have no doubt.

 

[Sonya610]

Maybe pro-chg ppl think prsctr decided no-chg based on "she's suffered enough" theory? Comments, any pro-chg'ers?

Or maybe they aren't charging because it could cause "friction" in the community.