from The New yorker

KID COURT
by IAN FRAZIER

Abstracts of recent decisions.

1. Elephant or no?

During sleepover, preschoolers A and Z were in A?s room for ?talking,? a quiet time intended for winding down prior to bed. Conversation turned to recently rented cartoon movie, ?Dumbo.? A remarked that ?Dumbo is a cute little elephant.? In response, Z stated, flatly, ?Dumbo is not an elephant.? Shocked by this, A replied, with some emphasis, to the effect that Dumbo certainly is anelephant. Z then repeated the assertion. A introduced into argument Dumbo?s trunk and elephant mother. For rebuttal, Z simply restated previous position, ?Dumbo is not an elephant.? A called in counsel, who advised that since Z was the guest, why not let her say Dumbo is whatever she wants Dumbo to be? Outraged, A said again that Dumbo was an elephant, meanwhile beginning to cry and kick the side of her bed as Z, unmoved, looked on.

Court at first refused to hear the case. On reapplication, court ruled that it didn?t really matter what kind of animal Dumbo was, now please go to sleep. Decision upheld on appeal.

2. Competition gone wrong

A and B, siblings, on car trip, entered ill-advisedly into burping contest. Drinking soda was involved. B said new flavor of soda, tried by him for first time, was pretty good. A replied, ?I?ll bet it?s really not.? This later construed as evidence of animus against B. Contest proceeded without further dispute. Burps of A and B roughly equal in quality, volume, etc. After ten minutes, A said she was bored. B then produced outstanding burp, which A let go by without comment. B, noting A?s silence, asked her opinion. Still receiving no answer, B said, ?Hey, I complimented your burps.? A replied in a way seen as unforthcoming by B, who then put pressure on A?s seat belt until she screamed.

Court pulled over and refused to continue until A and B were silent; both enjoined to remain like that; contest suspended.

3. Ordnance dispute

B and Y, friends, sitting at campsite picnic table, began discussion of weaponry. Question to be resolved: Can machine guns fire underwater? B inclined to the affirmative, Y to the negative. Advantage seesawed back and forth until Y produced apparent trump, namely, ?If machine guns can fire underwater, then why are there spearguns?? Having reached stalemate, question was referred to court for certiorari.

After deliberation, court found greater merit in argument of Y, existence of spearguns being seen in and of itself presumptive of inutility of combustion-propelled projectiles when entire machine gun is underwater. Court made mental note to call gun shop or someplace when home and ask if that actually is correct.

4. The self-inflicted hit

This case involved conflicting complaints presented to court simultaneously. A and B, siblings, were in living room?B on sofa, A in armchair doing math. B was playing with ?shark guy,? action figure with shark head, big arms, and smaller legs and torso. By manipulating movable shark jaw, B was causing shark guy to sing ?Jingle Bells? with first consonants of words replaced, i.e., ?Bingle bells, bingle bells, bingle ball be bay,? ?Dingle dells, dingle dells, dingle dall de day,? etc. A requested that B stop. B?s response was to make shark guy repeat, through crude ventriloquism and jaw motions, words just spoken by A. Becoming angry, A pretended to hurl math notebook at B. B, not understanding that gesture was merely a feint, quickly lifted his arm to ward off anticipated blow, resulting in unintentional jab to own forehead with pointed end of shark guy. Howling in pain, B then hurled shark guy at A, striking her on wrist. Both immediately sought redress at court.

Here we have a more complex question in kid jurisprudence; that is, how does the ?Always use words, not hitting? rule apply to fake or threatened blows, especially when the putative victim?s response itself results in harm? Or, put another way, what blame if any accrues to A for a mere gesture that, as she claims, she had no intention of following through? B, representing himself, argued that he had every reason to believe the threat was real, and indicated as corroboration a large bruise below right kneecap, which he claimed was result of A kicking him earlier with field-hockey shoe. On redirect, A said that she did not even have field-hockey shoes, because practice had just started and she hadn?t gotten them yet. These remarks were followed with animadversions against B beyond scope of discussion.

Fed up, court cut Gordian knot by sending A and B to opposite corners; five minutes for every subsequent remark.

Before sentencing, as well as during and after, court admonished both A and B for their conduct, which he described as the worst seen all afternoon. Court asked if they had any idea how damaging their acts were for society, when he was forced to close the door of his basement office so as not to hear their disruption, and then had to get off the phone in the middle of an important call with a client, to whom he was trying to sell half a million dollars of term life insurance, because they came bursting in on him when they had been specifically told not to interrupt until six o?clock. Court asked if A and B would like to make large income necessary to pay the mortgage themselves, and, if not, would they be willing to move to a shack because they had created so much trouble and destroyed the business of the person who fed, sheltered, and clothed them. Court asked how they would like that.

B expressed remorse, had sentence shortened; remanded to video games. A, unrepentant, referred to court as ?a big fat hypocrite?; sentence to be continued indefinitely.

5. Birthday-party plan

To party for eleventh birthday, B, the celebrant, invited guests D, E, F, G, H, I, and Y. Sodas in refrigerator, cash on counter to pay pizza deliveryman. Court adjourned to third-floor storage room with mattress, food. Closed door tightly. Disregarded sounds of crashing, breakage, screams. Let real court sort it out.