I'm starting a Part 2 because I'[m sick of typing out a response and having the thread closed when I try to submit it!

There doesn't need to be an intent to cause physical harm. Per the Texas code, there only has to be 'intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.'

It's impossible to believe that a 12 year girl wouldn't know that someone would find being stripped of their clothes and exposed in public offensive. It doesn't matter what did or didn't happen in an earlier incident. That's the kind of legal argument that might work in a written defense but no Family Court judge would buy it. A 12 year old wouldn't get a jury trial or all these motions, anyway. She'd get a closed Family Court hearing and she'd be found guilty. She would probably just plead guilty. The judge is bound to ask her how she would feel if someone pulled down her pants in front of her schoolmates and it would take some nerve to tell him or her that she wouldn't mind if it was done to her. If she tried that defense, it would just tick off the judge. Now, if the girl is mentally challenged, then I suppose it could be successfully argued that she lacked the capacity to understand how her actions would be perceived. Even then, she still committed the crime and it IS a crime.

And really, whether some fast talking lawyer can get her out of it isn't the point. It's 'inappropriate' if a two year old pulls down the diaper of another 2 year old on the playground. The toddler would have to be taught that it's wrong to pull off someone else's clothes. It's more than 'inapproprite' if a 12 year old does it. A 12 year old should know that it's offensive.

I think devinmom made a really good point. I don't think anybody wants to see a 12 year old girl hung out to dry for a mistake in judgement but the OP's son deserves better justice than a worthless in-school suspension. He was violated and the girl (and other students) need to be made aware that attacking other students won't be tolerated. They won't get the message if all they receive is a slap on the wrist.

Where does it stop? 'Inappropriate' if done to a 12 year old but a crime if done to a 16 year old? Some 12 year olds are more developed than 16 year olds so that won't work. 'Inappropriate' for one student to strip another but a crime for a group of students to do it? That still means the strong can control the weak. 'Inappropriate' for a girl to do it but a crime if boy does it? Fair's fair. We all know that if a boy had pulled down the underwear of a 12 year old girl, he would have gotten much worse than an in-school suspension.

If the school had handled the situation fairly, the matter would probably be settled already. I hope that the school rethinks the girl's punishment and at least gives her an out of school suspension. The in-school suspension is an insult to the victim. It would be an expulsion offense in many schools! Hopefully, a real suspension would satisfy the OP and no further action will be needed, If it doesn't though, she'd be well within her rights to pursue the matter further. After all, her son was victimized and the girl is old enough to know what she did was wrong and that it could 'reasonably be believed' that would be considered extremely offensive by the victim.

The bottom line is that any child of any age or gender should be able to go to school without being humiliated. Pulling off someone's clothes is a physical attack (even if it's a sneak attack) and shouldn't be tolerated.

I have always said that the school did not handle this appropriately. And I agree that the girl should have face a harsher punishment. I never argued against that....

But, I find it ironic that there's a thread on here about practical jokes--all of which could have been considered an assault on the victim of the practical joke. And some of the people who have argued so vehemently that this girl committed a criminal act, admitted to vandalism, destruction of property, assault, all in the name of a practical joke. Would someone care to explain the difference to me? Oh, that is it! The practical jokes were done in good fun. No one intended to hurt another, no one really thought it was offensive or "mean"--it was just a joke. No one thought that wrapping a person's vehicle in industrial size Saran Wrap was mean--it was just a joke.

Now, Cougarskies--I don't believe you posted on the practical joke thread, so the term hypocritical does not apply to you. I respect the fact that you have been consistent in your statements/arguments. I disagree with you on some points, but that's ok--we're adults we can disagree and not argue. I do take issue w/ Hypocrits, though!

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

So who would you be referring to?

The difference would be that none of that was a crime, there was no assault, or destruction of property, that's the difference. If you wrapped a naked person in saran wrap and forced them into the street then that would be, but not by wrapping his car? No damage was caused by anything typed on that thread, you're just looking to stir up trouble.

__________________
"A true friend is someone who thinks that you are a good egg even though he knows that you are slightly cracked." ~ Bernard Meltzer

I wasn't able to find the hypocrisy that you mention - who/where?

cj/

__________________
I was walking home one night and a guy hammering on a roof called me a paranoid little weirdo. In morse code. -Emo Phillips

No, I'm not looking to stir up trouble--I am expressing my opinion.

Let's see---what about the pregnant lady that slipped off the toilet because it had been coated w/ slippery stuff? Could she have sustained an injury when doing that? Could it have caused damage to her or her unborn child? Shouldn't a reasonable and prudent person think that putting slick stuff on a toilet seat might cause someone to be injured?

The wrapping of the car--could it somehow have damaged the paint on the car? Could taking it off somehow damaged the car? Could the person had an emergency and needed to get in his vehicle but couldn't because it had been Saran Wrapped? Shouldn't a reasonable and prudent person thought of all those things?

See, I guess what I'm trying to say is this---Adults do stupid things without thinking. And some of those things--by the letter of the law--are criminal acts. But, these adults don't consider that at the time. They just think of how funny it will be to see "Joe Bob's" face when he sees his car wrapped or whatever...So, if Adults do stupid things, thinking it's a practical joke--not considering the full ramifications of their actions, or the possible criminal charges, and don't get criminal charges pressed against them, why should a 12 year old who may or may not have developed good reasoning skills or impulse control be subjected to a criminal charge, police investigation, etc? I just believe that it is hypocritical to expect a 12 y/o to behave better than an adult.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

Actually, that's a good point. I read the post and that was EXACTLY my thought, too! And yes, a reasonable and prudent person should think that putting slick stuff on a toilet seat might cause someone to be injured.

I don't usually participate in practical jokes because I rarely see one that I find funny. Most practical jokes are just excuses to get a chuckle at someone else's expense. I think my sense of humor is well developed but I just don't see very many that I find amusing. Well, that and because I don't trust my luck.

This is what will happen if somebody else soaps a toilet seat and a pregnant lady came along:

"OOH, I fell in! Har, Har, Har! That was so funny that I'm going to do it to someone else!"

This is what would happen if I soaped a toilet seat and a pregnant lady comes along:

"OOH, my back's broken! Call an ambulance! I think I'm having a miscarriage!

Mariliynk, I understand your point but I don't agree with it because I DON'T expect a 12 y/o to behave better than an adult. I hold the adult responsible, too. I think that if an adult plays a practical joke and something goes wrong, they should pay the piper. I'm not willing to pay so I don't risk it.

I'm not suggesting that the OP press charges against the girl. I just think the girl should be aware that she could be charged with a crime so she will know that a practical joke isn't always funny to the victim. Sometimes, a poor joke can be very harmful. Ideally, the school will rethink it's position and the matter can be laid to rest. I just think that people (12 year olds and adults alike) should be held accountable for their actions and (at least), learn from their mistakes so they don't repeat them.

The suggestion earlier of pressing criminal charges is a bit over the top. It needs to stay in the school, but if the principal isn't willing to suspend her from school for a few days (at the very least), then principal should be informed of a great story in the local newspaper. That would definitely get the school's leader's attention.

What about the repercussions this will have on the young boy if mom starts talking about pressing charges? I am guessing that many kids will turn against him and things will only get worse for him (it was also mentioned that he was moved up a grade, so he is youngest kid in the class). If the principal does all the diciplining, then it's all on him (principal), and that's the way it should be.

__________________
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!

Actually we do agree in the sense that I think that 12 y/o should be held accountable for their behaviours/actions--just as an adult should.

In my long winded and convuluted manner that was the point I was trying to make when pointing out the hypocritical (IMHO) posts.

Yes, by all means the girl should be made aware that touching anyone without their express consent is inappropriate and potentially criminal behaviour! Good grief, as an EMT I could not even perform life saving measures on a man bleeding to death if he told me not to touch him!

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

Not that I approve of the behavior but hey,if all they are gonna get is a few days of in school suspension ,I say for the boys sake "GO GET HER BOY"!

The difference in those examples, Marilyn, is that the injuries you describe are unintended consequences of the "prank gone wrong." As far as we know with the 12 yo girl, her prank went off exactly as planned.

Do I advocate running to the police? I don't know. I do believe if some guy had pulled a girl's choir robe off, leaving all her important parts nude and inciting laugher among those who saw her breasts and genitals, that he'd have been in terrible, terrible trouble. It does seem to be a double-standard at work, and I am not all that supportive of double-standards.

I think it was a prank - a practical joke - and that he girl has no sense of empathy, no ability to see past her own laughter to the feelings that were inflicted upon her victim. That's not entirely uncommon at that age. And yet, that is the very reason it needs to be taken very seriously. She's either going to develop empathy because she's called to attention when she fails to show it... or she is going to have her bad and selfish notions reinforced.

If the point is to make an impression, if calling in the police is the only way to accomplish that, so be it.

Did you ever think that she may have just meant to pull his shorts down? Not his underwear? Exposing the boy's private parts....

I don't know. And neither do you. When in High School, in girls gym (it was the girls Basketball team) it was nothing to see one girl pull another girls SHORTS down. On the rare occasion the shorts AND the underwear would come down. It was an accident...

I don't know--maybe she did mean to embarass and humilate the OP's son, but maybe it was just a prank gone wrong. Maybe she didn't mean to completely expose him...

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

But you described a girl pulling down a girl's shorts in front of the other girls who probably already saw each other in the shower on a daily basis. Much different, IMHO.

I don't care what she meant to pull down. They're called UNDERwear for a reason, and unless the poster's son tends to walk around with his jeans at his knees (which I'm assuming he doesn't, tho I know many guys do), he probably doesn't want them to be seen.

Forget the fact that SHE is 12, and remember that HE is 12, too. It's a hard and tender age, and surely you can't expect that he would have been wholly at ease standing around in his boxers in front of the school, can you?

She was going for the shock value and the laugh at his expense. Plain and simple.

Quit making excuses for her, I say.

I know.Give the kid some fake blood (washable kind)and when noone is looking let him sneak up behind her and smack a handful of it on her butt!
HA HA!! She'll be laugh of the class then!

Better yet have him fill up a lil squirt gun with fake blood so he doesn't get charged with a sexual offense.

Now I can see your point, especially the point about the pregnant woman and yes things do go wrong. IMO I just think that the only reason she did what she did was to degrade and embarrass the boy, there couldn't have been another reason to do such a thing. And things are different now than when we (or at least when I) was in school, they don't take things lightly anymore, they can't afford to, kids are getting hurt.

So yes point taken, but the intent will never be crystal clear.

__________________
"A true friend is someone who thinks that you are a good egg even though he knows that you are slightly cracked." ~ Bernard Meltzer

and I say everyone should quit being the judge, jury and executioner for this 12 y/o girl. None of us, NOT EVEN the OP know the whole of what happened. My god, there were people here wanting her charged w/ sexual assault!

And 12 y/o find humor in stuff that most adults do not. I don't know what the reaction would have been if it had just been his top layer....
I have never made excuses for her--I just think that some people here had this girl convicted and sentenced before all the evidence was in...

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

At 12 years old it is possible that she did it out of peer pressure being dared by other girls to do it.

I think it's sweet that you feel the girl "should be made aware" - I just think it's an extremely out of touch response these days. This is all covered well before kids are in sixth grade.

And in the event that she's been hiding under a rock and needed to be made aware, hopefully she has now!