under the protections of the juvenile court after the trial court shouldn't apply to reasonable juvenile standards instead of a reasonable person standard and the the iranians ruling by the court had severe consequences because n he was charged under a felony version requires that that person actually knowingly engage and force the other two sections two and three just require that the person knowingly assemble so really and those are mis versions of my actions so really the statute differentiates between when there is a mob the person that actually does the violence occurs says people that are part of the mob and violence happens someone else in the mob commits a mob action backpack that night because he had donated shoes as part of the entrance to get into the sponsored house so he had a backpack and while he was trying to get to the safety of his father in his father's car which was parked in the parking lot his grab involvement it was that he saw an awful head was on the ground and that really buttress his neville's own money that punch the fight started he realized he couldn't break it up he ran to his dad's car multiple people were punching him he swung his book bag at one point fell to the fell to the ground by his father's car in the states none of the state witnesses described all punching anyone back no witness testified that novelist punch metal punched down mr view first one of the main two confusion or i don't think that that logically follows if someone is present and only receiving receiving punches surely they're involved in the fight but that doesn't indicate that they themselves ever fought back he waited a few moments and then he also likes the safety of his father's car and this really brings me to my second point which is of the state fails to show the mens rea of recklessness because neville acted as a reasonable juvenile in this is the miners ability to anticipate rest in understanding what results will will occur and it's important that there be a different standard for a reasonable juvenile versus a reasonable adult because adults are more capable of thinking through and understanding what risks are likely to result from them from the conduct and from the situation in which they're in and the conclusion that the reasonable now standard should be inherent in the recklessness statute is proper for three reasons first the juvenile status is an important situational factor in other jurisdictions with similar recklessness group recognize that this was an invitation to fight and that a pipe was worth problem well the other all the other people that testify are actually part of mr you first group and then one person that was not present for that previous fight he was in custody as part of this case so he may or may not have been aware that of a prior fight occurred certainly mr buford testified he thought that there was going to be a fight later that  anticipating a fight now will never testimony was not part of that and again that gets back to his men's right and the level of culpability in an arizona case which evaluates  uses the reasonable juvenile standard in the context of recklessness there they found that voice we're playing with shopping carts another one of them hit a parked car i was surprised by this surprise that it caused damage and the court found that way of knowing that once he saw them he immediately sent his brother away and then once it became clear that a fight had already started he immediately laughed and while maybe adults would realize and make a saying that he should have gone back into the school and gotten a staff member and that would also be reasonable conduct for a juvenile but seeking the protection of the parent which is what novelty to here was equally reasonable it was certainly not a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable juvenile good exercise in that that is really what it comes down to a friend closeness was natural able to fully appreciate the likely result of what was about to occur again he was unaware of his previous fight and then it was his reaction in this situation a gross deviation in here all the testimony confirms that level especially in under a minute decided this isn't safe for my eight year old brother unreasonable and therefore the state really fails to show the in the civil context often times the havior of the juvenile whether it's determining if they should jump on a trampoline office or you know in a on a trampoline in a certain way and whether or not that's dangerous or dive into a shallow swimming pool those toward cases a reasonable fourteen year old reasonable fifteen year old standard is a five year reasonable juvenile the life of a life age and because recklessness also relies on a reasonable a reason if the person was reasonable in this situation it's appropriate to a i have that here and that was released that's been really spelled out in the case law from illinois on the use of the reasonable juvenile standard in the context of miranda the u s supreme court recently in two thousand and eleven in haiti versus north carolina used the reasonable juvenile standard in the criminal context and said that that was the law of the land however illinois had been doing it all the way back since one thousand nine hundred eighty nine and people versus lucas where they said various factors should be taken into account for to determine custody for miranda including age but they must have an objective determination as to what a reasonable man innocent of any crime would have thought had he been in defendant's shoes and that was reaffirmed in people versus fracs in two thousand and three that they're concerned with what a reasonable person in defendant's shoes would have thought about his or her freedom of action the result personally in a vision must at least be wearing comparable footwear and that's really what we're asking here if the recklessness mens rea on this apply is based on what a reasonable defendant in that defendant situation  burden of proof at the trial level was only preponderance of the evidence so much more stringent reasonable doubt proof beyond reasonable doubt heard what evidence of force or violence was two two people two witnesses saying responded with involved in a fight i wish they would have asked if he swung or something like that there were no follow up question this isn't the strongest evidence however it only needs to be more likely true than not that respondent was used force in this fight a common person saying that someone is involved in this by means or a participant in the fight that's what the trial court found out i mean you could have will would that be for survival i would face violence i mean and chances are at some point he's going to do some it makes no sense to just stand there with your arms or your side that doesn't make no human would do that if they're in a middle of a fight responded himself knew there was going to be a fight he sent his eight year old son as eight year old brother to the car he knew there that's that's i mean if you really was trying to protect his brother and didn't know there was going to be a fight you would have went along with the brother witnesses testified trying to break up the fight truck or was under no obligation to believe that their best position of value which credibility of all the witnesses the two the two state witnesses testified that he was involved the opposite conclusion is not clearly evident here that's what we're going to get to the manifest way the evidence standard the opposite conclusion has to be clearly evident that it was more likely true than not that responded have been trying to break up the fight or something that anything is possible so that that cross examination should be taken with a grain solve again the trial court in fact finder was in the best position to evaluate t standard of you there are just there was it wasn't the strongest case of a mob action however there was a reasonable inference to be made that respondent used force or violence as he was a part is when a willing participant  continued he continued to engage with the group however he knowing he was annoying and will participate in the trial court found he was a willing participant in by this is not a he didn't recklessly commit mob action here he knowingly committed mob action trout court order says that he didn't end up in the fight by accident two witnesses testify that he was involved in the fight this was not a reckless state of mind however i would argue would be reckless under any standard juvenile or in fact it was reckless even to respond it is subjective standard he knew there was going to be a fight him standing as brother to his bass car show that he knew there was going to be a fight and he still stuck with the group all the way until the fight started til apparently fight ended and i apparently it was a quick amount of time but it was fun it was there i don't i i can see that trout were easily dismissing any o the fight has happened and i was happy to be in the middle of it and if anything i tried to break it up i could see the court easily dismissing that as an incredible story as far as the constitutional issue is concerned respondent relies on grover miller and graham greene's u s supreme court cases that deal with eighth amendment cruel and unusual punishment arguments this court of people versus croom justice turner incurred on distinguish those cases  as applying only to those narrow circumstances those circumstances being a juvenile who sentence that that thirty mile is in the natural life without parole those this is clearly not an eighth amendment violation nor is it a severe sentence argument people first term says those cases are clearly distinguishable because they apply a different analysis you under a different test for an alleged violation of a different constitutional provision not the automatic transfer to adult court issues here or john mattick transfer revisionism at issue here but the point is it's a different constitutional provision procedural due process here than it was in the miller graham cases the us of or the illinois supreme court also grover miller and graham and patterson which i also cited a constitutional challenge raised under one theory cannot be supported by decision a law based purely on another provision and they are they specifically rejected defended procedural the process argument of this case is just not apt to talk about the reasonable juvenile stand because respondents conduct leading up to the mob action was unreasonable as a juvenile standard because it was unreasonable even to respond to the subjective you responded knew he was acting he responded to a fight was happening is still stuck with the group still participated in the fight as far as the actual state specifics he never he never testified that mr booker actually did join in the fight by physically punching anyone or hitting anyone and there was no testimony presented even from it and on that there group which never was and under the subsection of mob action with which novelists charge that the state was require to prove that neville himself actively you know that he personally engaged in force or violence regardless of the conduct  would not have occurred both the language of acting recklessly recklessly and engaged reasonably indicates that the mens rea of recklessness was what was that issue here  finding someone consciously is aware of their actions does not negate a finding of reckless has both recklessness and knowledge required that the person be aware of their actions but they are not he actually consistent  mental state there's a different level of culpability if someone is reckless versus someone has knowledge and that is because with knowledge a person is certain that they eventually will occur and with recklessness the person is not