Freeze! Drop that cookie! NOW!

[JohnRich 4]

From the news:

A sixth-grade New Jersey student was suspended after school officials accused him of threatening to expose a highly allergic teacher to peanut butter cookies.

The boy was carrying a snack packet of Nutter Butter cookies and did make a comment about having "something dangerous" but never said he had a weapon.

The teacher was not exposed to the cookies and had no reaction.

Full Story

Drop that cookie and step away from it! NOW!

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

From the news:

A sixth-grade New Jersey student was suspended after school officials accused him of threatening to expose a highly allergic teacher to peanut butter cookies.

The boy was carrying a snack packet of Nutter Butter cookies and did make a comment about having "something dangerous" but never said he had a weapon.

The teacher was not exposed to the cookies and had no reaction.

Full Story

Drop that cookie and step away from it! NOW!

One more biological weapon than was found in Iraq.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[RoadRash 0]

I heard about this over the weekend...At first I thought it was some of my friends joking around, and was informed that they weren't. Assault with a deadly Nutter Butter?!?!

I personally think that this could have been handled without a suspension or even a freakin' hearing... I had a child related allergy to peanuts (they induced migraines) and had to stay away from my favorite candy(Reese's Peanut Butter Cups) and sandwich(PB&J). But my parents never forced the entire school to keep peanut products away from me...(which these days has become a popular method for dealing with such allergies, just don't allow it, period...stupid, but true.)

I was also curious, I was under the impression that the child actually threatened the teacher, but from the article, is sounds more like he was hauling around some food which was not allowed by the teacher and she found out.

~R+R...Good grief, Nutter Butters for crying out loud......Ooooooooooooooh..that makes me want a big old PB&J with some Nutter Butters on the side......

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~...

[JohnRich 4]

Photo of the deadly weapon in question:

Lions and tigers and nutter butters, oh my!

[AggieDave 6]

Damnit John, don't post scary pics like that, I just pissed myself and threw my wallet at my monitor!

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Nightingale 0]

You have to look at the motive of the child here...

If the child knew that the teacher had a life-threatening peanut allergy and tried to secretly expose the teacher to peanuts, that is attempted murder.

If the child was just trying to play a joke, that's another matter.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

You have to look at the motive of the child here...

If the child knew that the teacher had a life-threatening peanut allergy and tried to secretly expose the teacher to peanuts, that is attempted murder.

If the child was just trying to play a joke, that's another matter.

Yeah, motive is important. It's amazing what can poison people. Nuts are a great way of doing certain people in.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Yeah, motive is important. It's amazing what can poison people. Nuts are a great way of doing certain people in.

Note to self....don't piss off lawrocket.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[RoadRash 0]

Quote

You have to look at the motive of the child here...

If the child knew that the teacher had a life-threatening peanut allergy and tried to secretly expose the teacher to peanuts, that is attempted murder.

If the child was just trying to play a joke, that's another matter.

True, if the child had alterior motives and wished to actually frighten the teacher or even threaten the teacher openly maybe that is a different story, however, from the article, there was another student that turned him in, so I don't think that he openly threatened the teacher and therefore is being treated like a 12 year old criminal instead of being chastised and sent along his merry way.


~R+R

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~...

[mr2mk1g 10]

I've always loved the idea of getting someone who is allergic to peanuts and making them play Russian roulette with a bag of Revels.

(In case they're not known in your part of the world, Revels are little a little bag of virtually identical chocolate balls. Some contain peanuts, some toffee, some malt balls, some are plain chocolate.)

[SBS 0]

True, if the child had alterior motives and wished to actually frighten the teacher or even threaten the teacher openly maybe that is a different story, however, from the article, there was another student that turned him in, so I don't think that he openly threatened the teacher and therefore is being treated like a 12 year old criminal instead of being chastised and sent along his merry way.

------------------

So a kid brings a poisonous snake to school and only tells the kid next to him about it, and it's ok, it means that it's just a joke? I agree that this could be drastically blown out of proportion, but if the kid knew that the teacher was allergic, then it wasn't a very smart joke, and is really no different from bringing a snake to school.

-S

_____________
I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness...

[PhillyKev 0]

That shit's no joke.

I had to give a friend of mine an epinephrine injection because she ate some soup that had pine nut oil in it.

A coworker of mine has a child with a severe nut allergy. They can't be in the same room with an open jar of peanut butter or their throat starts closing. When she flies with him, she asks the airlines not to serve nuts. They usually accomadate and give out pretzels instead, but sometimes they don't or won't. In those cases she brings a sack full of pretzel bags and finds a sympathetic stewardess to swap them out.

[RoadRash 0]

Quote

True, if the child had alterior motives and wished to actually frighten the teacher or even threaten the teacher openly maybe that is a different story, however, from the article, there was another student that turned him in, so I don't think that he openly threatened the teacher and therefore is being treated like a 12 year old criminal instead of being chastised and sent along his merry way.

------------------

So a kid brings a poisonous snake to school and only tells the kid next to him about it, and it's ok, it means that it's just a joke? I agree that this could be drastically blown out of proportion, but if the kid knew that the teacher was allergic, then it wasn't a very smart joke, and is really no different from bringing a snake to school.

-S

"Could be..." I think that it has definitely been blown out of proportion. Maybe I haven't made myself clear, which is my fault. I believe that even if he was trying to scare the teacher, instead of making the kid out to be a criminal, the principal and his parents, YES, the parents should have to sit down and have a little chat, and what I mean by chat is a discussion as to why he thought it was cool or fun to bring something to class that could potentially harm someone...especially his teacher. Going beyond that is ridiculous and costly...timewise and otherwise.


~R+R

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~...

[sdgregory 0]

Quote

Damnit John, don't post scary pics like that, I just pissed myself and threw my wallet at my monitor!

ROFLMFAO!!!!!

[piisfish 140]

remember that bretzels can also be very dangerous... Someone even tried to assasinate your president with one of those...

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

remember that bretzels can also be very dangerous... Someone even tried to assasinate your president with one of those...

I'm sure you've never choked on a piece of food before, oh ye that cast the first stone.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

True, if the child had alterior motives and wished to actually frighten the teacher or even threaten the teacher openly maybe that is a different story, however, from the article, there was another student that turned him in, so I don't think that he openly threatened the teacher and therefore is being treated like a 12 year old criminal instead of being chastised and sent along his merry way.

------------------

So a kid brings a poisonous snake to school and only tells the kid next to him about it, and it's ok, it means that it's just a joke? I agree that this could be drastically blown out of proportion, but if the kid knew that the teacher was allergic, then it wasn't a very smart joke, and is really no different from bringing a snake to school.
-S

That is not nearly the same. A poisonous snake would be indiscriminately dangerous to anyone who interacted with it. The nutter butter cookies are not anything that is fairly classified as a dangerous substance or weapon. They are not uniformly dangerous to all humans, such as a vial of sarin would be.

Are you suggesting that NO one should be allowed to bring nutter butters ANYWHERE, because there could be SOMEONE who is deathly allergic to them?

If this kid brought the cookies AND intended to throw them at the teacher or something, hoping to get his allergy to act up, that would be one thing. To simply HAVE the cookies with him because they were part of his lunch, that is nothing that rises to a criminal level. To have the cookies as lunch and to make some flippant JOKE COMMENT about what would happen if he gave them to the allergic teacher, that too is not a crime, nor should it be punished. If there was any intent to act on the comment, that begins to be a real transgression.

I am not aware that the kid actually made any attempt, nor expressed a plan or intention to cause an allergic reaction in the teacher.

Just what would you want, anyway? To ban all people from being able to have peanut products just because some people are vulnerable to them?

What would you say if the kid, not knowing the teacher had the allergy, had gone up in genuine generosity and offered a few to the teacher? Would you see a crime committed there? After all, the same effect (severe allergic reaction) would be possible, and the intent of the kid would be irrelevant.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

I want to know where this all is supposed to end.

I mean, yes, there are people in the population who could suffer severe health effects (death included) if exposed to various food products. As I recall, a few years ago they stopped serving peanuts on airliners because of fears that the "peanut dust" would travel through the circulation system and possibly "infect" allergic people even if they had not had peanuts themselves.

Obviously, it would be absurd to BAN peanuts, just in order to protect allergic people wherever they might go. They simply cannot make innocent possession of peanuts a crime, no matter what the reason for having them. I don't care if I had the peanuts on me because I was going to eat them, or just because I wanted to have them for the heck of it. Peanuts are simply not weapons.

So, let's say I was on an airliner that stopped serving peanuts for the health reasons. What if i brought my OWN, because I simply like them as a snack, and I miss the airlines providing them? It's not like I can be charged with a crime of endangering other people. They haven't passed a law to keep peanuts off airliners or buses, etc. I suppose the most they could do is request that I don't open them. Would that have the force of law? I dunno.

We cannot protect 100% of the people from 100% of the things that might harm them -- particularly if they are things enjoyed by others who don't suffer harm from them.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[SBS 0]

Oh, come on.

The premise was that the kid was well aware of the allergy, and made a comment about using the cookies to harm the teacher.

A gun isn't 'indiscriminately dangerous' to everyone...just the person you choose to shoot. How does having a gun in your backpack and joking about shooting the teacher differ from having what can be used as a sort of weapon against her and talking about using that? Regardless of what it is, if you know that something can be used as poison, and you plan to use it as such, it is a problem that need be addressed.

I am not saying that I totally agree with treating this child like this, especially since we don't know the nature of his comments. I am only saying that I could understand instances where situations like this could be justifiably treated very seriously, regardless of what we are talking about being the 'weapon'.

-S

_____________
I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness...

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Oh, come on.

The premise was that the kid was well aware of the allergy, and made a comment about using the cookies to harm the teacher.

A gun isn't 'indiscriminately dangerous' to everyone...just the person you choose to shoot. How does having a gun in your backpack and joking about shooting the teacher differ from having what can be used as a sort of weapon against her and talking about using that? Regardless of what it is, if you know that something can be used as poison, and you plan to use it as such, it is a problem that need be addressed.

I am not saying that I totally agree with treating this child like this, especially since we don't know the nature of his comments. I am only saying that I could understand instances where situations like this could be justifiably treated very seriously, regardless of what we are talking about being the 'weapon'.

-S

Is having the cookies but NOT making any comment about using them against the teacher completely benign? Is the only difference simply the comment, even though the comment was not meant to be taken seriously? I'm just trying to figure out the boundaries of your viewpoint on this. If a second kid had been in the exact same location with the first kid, with the same cookies, with the same allergic teacher nearby, would he be in trouble for having those cookies near an allergic teacher, even if he knew he was allergic?

Are possessors of peanut products responsible for knowing of the allergies of those around them, and taking precautions to protect those allergic people; or are the allergic people the ones responsible for safeguarding their own well-being? I want to know how far this is to be taken...

Is it the case that kids in this teacher's class will be prohibited from bringing peanut food products for lunch, but other kids will not be so restricted if their teachers are not allergic? If so, how is that fair? Why shouldn't EVERY member of the public's diet be restricted so as to protect the health of the most allergically vulnerable among us? Should the school provide a list of prohibited foods, which would be comprehensive and include ANY and ALL foods to which ANY person MIGHT be allergic?

I have not seen comment on what this case will mean to anyone who wishes to bring specific types of food to school for lunch.
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Um, any comment on why you refused to respond to any of the direct questions I asked in my post? I was kind of interested enough in your response to ask them...
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[wmw999 2,600]

The kid was 12. My memory of my kid at that age was that he was desperate to feel as powerful as an adult; he had most of the intellect of an adult, but virtually none of the judgement.

So kids that age will say things that will impress others with how "powerful" they are. It's not an attack on the other folks, it's a demonstration of coolness. But, since experience comes from bad judgement, this is something that neither he nor the other kids in his school will repeat.

Did they go overboard? Sounds like it. But, ya know, he's 12. He'll get over it, and the lesson will be very well learned. It was a dumbass thing to do.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[WrongWay 0]

Quote

From the news:

A sixth-grade New Jersey student was suspended after school officials accused him of threatening to expose a highly allergic teacher to peanut butter cookies.

The boy was carrying a snack packet of Nutter Butter cookies and did make a comment about having "something dangerous" but never said he had a weapon.

The teacher was not exposed to the cookies and had no reaction.

Full Story

Drop that cookie and step away from it! NOW!

Hahahaha, that's great, I'm gonna call into work with a "Mars Bar threat"......

Some people are just idiots. The school board there is a perfect example. Lighten up!!!!

Wrong Way
D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451
The wiser wolf prevails.

[Botellines 0]

I just asked my boss for a day off while threatingly holding a peanut cookie in my right hand. Will you believe it? it worked, tomorrow i am not coming to work.
So.. Does it mean that now i too have WMD. If so, i wil call Blix to get rid of mt M&M.

[SBS 0]

Well, the questions seemed to be in two catergories...those based on an incorrect premise that we are talking about someone 'just happening to have nutter butters', and those that I would consider rhetorical. I will answer them directly, if you would so like...

--------------------

Are you suggesting that NO one should be allowed to bring nutter butters ANYWHERE, because there could be SOMEONE who is deathly allergic to them?

---Do you REALLY, honestly believe that that is what I am suggesting? I have a friend who is deathly allergic to citrus...do you think that I don't drink orange juice? So, in answer to your question, no, that is not what I am saying.

----------------------------

Just what would you want, anyway? To ban all people from being able to have peanut products just because some people are vulnerable to them?

---This is the same question again...same answer...no...that is not what I am saying. I think that it is a shame that they feel that they have to take something that may have been a joke and treat it as being so serious, but unfortunately, that is where WE as a society have put OURSELVES. We can't blame it on anyone else. So, this level of paranoia is unfortunate, but has become a fact of life.


-S

_____________
I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness...