court found Garcia guilty of Count I but acquitted him of Count II. Garcia appeals. ANALYSIS State v. Bradley Our Supreme Court recently decided that a person using force to defend against the actions of a correctional officer must show that he or she was in actual, imminent danger of serious injury or death. State v. Bradley, 141 Wn.2d 731, 10 P.3d 358 (2000). Garcia argues that Bradley does not apply in the context of juvenile facilities. Garcia correctly notes that Washington courts recognize differences between juvenile and adult prosecutions and juvenile and adult incarceration facilities. But none of the cases he cites supports his argument that juvenile prisoners pose different risks to security staff than adult prisoners. See State v. Schaaf, 109 Wn.2d 1, 4, 743 P.2d 240 (1987) (<HOLDING>); State v. Lawley, 91 Wn.2d 654, 591 P.2d 772
recognizing that juveniles have no right to jury trial and that juvenile proceedings unlike adult prosecutions are rehabilitative in nature holding juveniles statement inadmissible when after being placed in custody police took juvenile to police station and held juvenile in area where adult suspects were held instead of taking juvenile to a juvenile processing office or any of the places listed as an alternative in section 5202 and placing juvenile in specifically designated office for juveniles recognizing juveniles right to counsel in certain juvenile proceedings holding juveniles do not have constitutional right to a jury trial but striking down statute that allowed juveniles to receive adult sentence without a jury trial three justices dissented reasoning juveniles should be entitled to a juiy trial under all cases because changes to juvenile justice code treated juveniles like criminals recognizing the juvenile courts broad discretion in fashioning orders specifically tailored to address each juveniles particular treatment and rehabilitative needs in order to effectuate the purposes and goals underlying the juvenile court system