A person shall not do either of the following:
Willfully mingle a poison or harmful substance with a food, drink, nonprescription medicine, or pharmaceutical product, or willfully place a poison or harmful substance in a spring, well, reservoir, or public water supply, knowing or having reason to know that the food, drink, nonprescription medicine, pharmaceutical product, or water may be ingested or used by a person to his or her injury. […] A person who violates subsection (1)(a) is guilty of a crime as follows:
Except as provided in subdivisions (b) to (e), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both.
Recklessness or willful blindness is defined as a wanton disregard for the known dangers of a particular situation. An example of this would be a defendant throwing a brick off a bridge into vehicular traffic below. There exists no intent to kill; consequently, a resulting death may not be considered murder. However, the conduct is probably reckless, sometimes used interchangeably with criminally negligent, which may subject the principal to prosecution for involuntary manslaughter: the individual was aware of the risk of injury to others and willfully disregarded it.
In many jurisdictions, such as in California, if the unintentional conduct amounts to such gross negligence as to amount to a willful or depraved indifference to human life, the mens rea may be considered to constitute malice. In such a case, the charged offense may be murder, often characterized as second degree murder.
A 10-year-old boy accused of trying to poison two of his classmates is no longer a student at the East Side charter school he attended, according to a letter sent home to parents Thursday.
In Juvenile Court, he will face charges of adding poison or other harmful substances to food, drink or medicine, said Sgt. Mark Robinson, a Tucson Police Department spokesman.
The boy brought six types of tablets... he told authorities he found the tablets and capsules.
He had put some of them in juice and offered the drink to two students...
A poison-control center confirmed that three types were non-narcotic prescription medication that if ingested by someone who didn't need them could lower the heart rate and blood pressure to dangerous levels
Well, our boy with the allergy had a donut.
Within 10 minutes, his face was visibly swollen. We called the school nurse (who had one of those 'allergy pen" things on hand - and who called 911) his family and frantically tried to find out what the source of the peanut might be.
the Harper's piece notes "there is simply no evidence that a food allergen can do serious harm if not ingested." Perhaps there was something else at work in the food he ate previously; we don't know for sure it was peanut breath while snogging that almost did the boyfriend in. At least one doctor quoted in the Harper's piece says he "occasionally has to spread peanut butter on a patient's arm to demonstrate to parents that their child won't die from casual contact with a nut."
I agree with those saying that the bully probably didn't fully understand what he was doing, because death is not real to a thirteen-year-old. Have you guys been in a classroom? Kids are unbelievably cruel. They have poor impulse control, an undeveloped sense of empathy, and don't appreciate that their actions have consequences. This kid is an asshole but he's not a cold-blooded murderer.
Kids generally aren't allowed to possess their own medications on a school campus.
Oh, never mind. IHBT.
Well, 22 pages of results from a search on "peanut allergy" in pubmed would probably dispel that skepticism, but don't trouble yourself too much.
« Older Gravitic Mayhem | The day my mama socked it to the Harper Valley PTA Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments