Bullying by peanuts

1. 88

   Stacie Lposted 13 years ago

   http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39389689/ns … and_asthma
   How about abuse by allergy?
   When a Wenatchee, Wash., high school student smeared peanut butter on the forehead of a fellow student with a serious peanut allergy two years ago, it was so shocking that the offender faced an assault charge and four days in jail.
   Some bullies are taking their abuse to a new height!
   They find out that a kid is allergic to peanuts and make them eat them.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      what we allow, we teach....adults need to step up and correct this behavior in thier own kids. they refuse to. Why?

      replyreport
2. 70

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

   Social issues with regards to "bullying" is out of control. The definition or premise is skewed by many, so much to an extreme that it has become absurd in many ways.
   
   Violence and Abuse Issues- Did the child know the other child was hyper sensitive to peanut butter before applying to the child's head?
   
   If not, then there is no abuse or violence. Just stupidity in motion.
   
   If the child did know and still proceeded then the parents and the child should be held accountable, up to a point.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      My first reaction to the original post was that the kid who smeared peanut butter on another was psychotic.  But I agree with you Cagsil on the points of intent and motivation.
      Not with holding the parents accountable, but with taking the motivation and/or foreknowledge or the lack thereof into account.   Motivation and intent have always been aspects taken into account in criminal trials, etc.   
      Which is why the current fad of evaluating crimes under the category of "hate crimes" is overkill and a vengeful way of handling acts of bullying and other crimes.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Hey Brenda,
         
         I will hold a parent responsible for what an 8 year old does or what an 11 year old does. Putting these children in jail isn't an option and to label their future, with a juvenile record isn't going to help either.
         
         There has to be a cut-off, on when conscious accountability is known to exist. When does a child become fully aware of their actions? It's very subjective.
         
         However, someone has to be held responsible for teaching children also. What you are suggesting is that parents are not or nor have anything to do with their child's actions? It's directly related to their ability and responsibility for teaching children they produce. I'm not saying put them in jail, but at least heavily fine them.
         
         It's ridiculous that it is tending that direction eventually. More and more government invasion, then the laws will become even more restrictive, and there will be no more freedom.
         
         It's sad people are not more responsible about their children and apparently must be made to do it?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I don't think parents can be held responsible for what their juvenile child does at all, unless they've orchestrated or prompted their child to do the dirty deed,  or unless the parent is in the direct vicinity when the happening occurred and could have prevented it.
            For one thing, every child has to learn responsibility for their own actions, based on that intent and knowledge that we talked about before.
            
            And...I think you and I have opposite views of how a child should be raised??
            
            So...I think government HAS to maintain the rules about conduct, because if that's left up to many parents, many parents will insert their own rules, which are not always right rules at all.
            Case in point is the many parents who are teaching children that it's okay for the children themselves to decide such things as sexuality and to judge the sexuality of other children, when in fact those children have no business being subjected to adult decisions and controversies.  Kids should be allowed to be just kids, and adults should make adult decisions based on correct governmental laws.

            replyreport
            1. 70

               Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               We don't disagree. Yet, I find that you have the same problem on this issue as you do with others.
               
               There isn't a set standard for morality, which means, people use their own subjective view on morality, and don't seek more information, because they are comfortable with their moral values that they have developed.
               
               Parents who refuse to teach moral behavior to their children, only hurt society. It directly shows their inability with regards to having compassion for others. Purposely raising children with no moral value only damages society as a whole.
               
               It's pathetic to see how many kids have no moral character, considering the amount of religious families are higher than those who are not religious. I guess I'll leave it there. Before, it's a religion tone.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  But we do disagree about something---
                  
                  There is indeed a set standard for morality.
                  One that many parents rebel at.

                  replyreport
      2. 59

         dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         so how do we stop it?  cant hold the kids rrsponsible, to young, dont want record, cant hold the parents either?  I do not know, beats me!

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            If it's true as DoorMattnomore says that the perpetrator was 19, then he/she can be held accountable by being put in jail, etc.
            
            When it comes to little children, all we can do is teach them correctly and punish them with punishment fitted to their age.  There are ways of doing that!  When I was a child, I personally feared a whipping from my parents,  and believe me I didn't get very many whippings because my parents put the fear of God AND the switch into me.  I am the better for it!   I think all normal kids can understand the concept of right and wrong and appropriate punishment.
            
            Nevertheless, these kinds of things are bound to happen sometimes.   We can't always excuse each case.   So kids, just like adults, have to be punished and live with the consequences of their behavior sometimes.

            replyreport
3. 71

   Jeff Berndtposted 13 years ago

   Wow. That isn't even bullying. That's intentional poisoning. Just because the substance isn't poisonous to most other people doesn't make it any less poisonous to the victim. The poisoner knew about the kid's allergy. It's exactly the same as putting some more widely effective poison on another kid's forehead.
   
   Four days in jail was a pretty light sentence in my view.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The kid knew?
      Wow.
      Did the victim die?  Or was hospitalized? or what?
      
      At high school age,  4 days in jail is a big deal.   I hope the kid learned a lesson.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         DoorMattnomoreposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         The "kid" was 19. (if I read that right...stupid ads kept popping up) Certainly old enough to understand the significance of what he was doing.

         replyreport