Self Defense for Teens – What Is Appropriate?

Watch this news report about a teenager being attacked.

I am frequently asked if use of force has a different set of standards when juveniles are involved.

Recently, a man attending one of our courses shared that his 16-year old daughter was assaulted by an older female shortly after she got off her school bus. It was a lovely afternoon with no hint of danger. Shortly after the school bus left this particular stop, his daughter was grabbed from behind by the hair and pulled to the ground. Her female assailant jumped on top of her, slammed her head into the ground and then proceeded to break her nose.

A friend of the daughter tried to pull the assailant off of her, but these efforts were hampered by two males who were standing by watching the incident. They were presumably accompanying the assailant and pulled the daughter’s friend off, not allowing her to interfere any further.

Nearby, several other people watched and did nothing. A few people cheered the assailant on. One observer did call the police and got the license plate number of the car that left the scene with the assailant and her two male companions.

The fellow who attends our course reacted like any other concerned father – his daughter had been viciously attacked for no reason. His anger was understandable. In the weeks following the incident the police investigated the case and identified the assailant and her cohorts. The assailant, an adult, was already on probation. This case will grind its way through the criminal justice system and we can only hope the end result will satisfy the victim and her parents.

As a result of this assault, the father asked me how his daughter should have protected herself. The answer to his question is that his daughter has the same right of self defense as any other civilian in the state. In Minnesota, a person 16 years or older “may possess and use an authorized tear gas compound in the exercise of reasonable force in defense of the person or the person’s property only if it is propelled from an aerosol container, labeled with or accompanied by clearly written instructions as to it’s use, and dated to indicate its anticipated useful life.” A person 18 years or older “may possess and use an electronic incapacitation device in the exercise of reasonable force in defense of the person or the person’s property only if the electronic incapacitation device is labeled with or accompanied by clearly written instructions as to it’s use and the dangers involved in its use.” And finally: “Reasonable force may be used upon or towards the person of another without the other’s consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist……..When used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person.”

Clearly, from a legal point of view she had the right to use reasonable force to protect herself. It would be reasonable for her to have used tear gas/pepper spray or an electronic incapacitation device on an assailant trying to smash her head into the ground.

The father’s question poses an interesting dilemma. Minnesota state statutes do not allow weapons on school grounds. It violates state law for his daughter to posses any weapon while on school property. The young woman attends a school that has a zero-tolerance policy in place for weapons of any kind. She had just completed her school day and gotten on a bus provided by the school district. The school district has some responsibility for the young woman’s safety while she is attending school and until she steps off the bus. As soon as she steps off the bus she is on her own. Now what?

This 16-year old student has the right to carry mace, pepper spray or a tear gas compound as soon as she steps off of the bus. But how would she access it if she has spent the whole day in settings in which it is either illegal or violates policy to possess such an item?

Most states in the United States have adopted laws similar to this statute from Minnesota: “whoever possesses, stores, or keeps a dangerous weapon or uses or brandishes a replica firearm or a BB gun while knowingly on school property is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than two years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.” Most schools have written policies that reflect these laws. Several decades of mass public shootings (including schools) and gang violence have produced these laws and policies, most of which are directed toward thwarting violence and curbing liability. But by doing so, they have set up yet another problem.

In addition to the statutes cited above, most states also have laws similar to Minnesota’s statute in terms of self defense. “Reasonable force may be used upon or towards the person of another without the others consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist……….When used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person……When used by a person in lawful possession of real or personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful interference with such property…”

Translation: you can use reasonable force against another without their permission if you believe they are trying to hurt you or someone else, or you believe them to be attempting to take yours or someone else’s property.

Let’s get back to this man’s 16-year old daughter. The situation she faced that day, with the existing laws in place leaves her no room to defend herself except by weaponless defense using her hands. Whatever she could do with her hands that would be considered “reasonable” under the law are her only options.

The young lady did sustain a broken nose and required some surgery. Although restitution is an option in court, it is more often uncollected than it is successfully collected. Let’s take this a step further. What if she had died as a result of her head being slammed into the ground? Is there liability on anyone’s part? I don’t have the answer to that, but let’s throw in a few more hypothetical factors to make it interesting.

The young woman had complained to school officials she was being regularly harassed by this woman at this particular bus stop. Her father had approached school officials and asked permission for his daughter to carry pepper spray due to the nature of the harassment.

School officials denied the request. Now, what kind of case is there for liability? Negligence is defined as a party’s failure to exercise the prudence and care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances to prevent injury to another party.

In a civil suit, generally the plaintiff in these cases must prove the following in order to be awarded restitution, compensation or reparations for their losses:

• That the defendant had a duty of care;
• That the defendant failed to uphold this duty;
• That this negligence led to the plaintiff’s injury or death;
• That the actual damages that were caused by the injury.

Gross negligence is usually understood to involve an act or omission in reckless disregard of the consequences affecting the life or property of another. This leaves us with quite a bit to think about. Should schools be offering self defense courses as part of their regular curriculum? Should parents take the responsibility of enrolling their kids in self defense courses? Have state laws and public school system policies gone too far in trying to protect students and mitigate violence?

These laws and policies are in place for a good reason. But in situations like this one, they also rob the victim of self defense options. In a related matter, many schools also have a zero violence policy. I remember a number of years ago when my son intervened in a situation in which one of his acquaintances was taking a beating at school. My son stepped in and simply pushed the assailant away from his friend, knocking the assailant to the ground. My son was given an in-school detention for several days, along with his friend and the assailant. It mattered little to school officials who did what during the incident. They had a shotgun approach to these matters; everyone involved receives consequences.

I had an interesting chat with his guidance counselor and the vice-principle of the school several days later. I showed them the statutes regarding reasonable force, and advised them they had no legal standing to take these statutory rights away from students. They conceded that was probably accurate and promised to have legal counsel look into it. Here we have another dilemma. School policy seems to trump state statutes. Generally, a public or private entity such as a school, corporation, company or organization can restrict even further, through policy, what the statutes allow. For example, even though I am a legitimate handgun permit holder, which is allowed by state statute, my employer may ban weapons from their property. This is okay. However, when it comes to using reasonable force to protect yourself or another, some schools are treading on thin ice as there is case law that establishes the right to defend yourself – no matter where you are.

Primary Consideration

No entity can take this basic right to self defense away. That is not to say those who exercise it will not suffer consequences for doing so, but be prepared to defend your actions from a legal basis.

© 2009 Terry Hipp