|
|
|
|
From today's Ask Reddit, which queries the Reddit community on legal issues.
Question: A relative of a close friend helped a school bully drink piss, and now the family is suing. Is he liable?
Background: Relative of a close friend (we'll call him Todd) carried Mountain Dew in his backpack to school every day. For a few weeks, this bully ("Brian") would go in his bag, say fuck you, and drink the Mountain Dew. Fed up with this and being a cunning lad, last Tuesday Todd drinks the Mountain Dew before class, and pisses in the bottle. Brian drank the piss, shat brix, and Todd emerged the victor that day. Now, Brian's family is threatening to sue, claiming Todd endangered Brian's health. Todd's family is apparently shitting and scrambling to collect character references for Todd from teachers, letters from doctors saying urine isn't harmful, and generally thinking their son is a psycho. I applaud Todd and think that he should walk into court holding a bottle of piss, it's freedom of expression, some people like piss filled bottles, but IANAL.
Edit: The school became aware of the incident when it happened. I believe Todd was suspended for a short period of time. The principal is actually instructing Brian's parents to press charges because the school doesn't want to get further involved
The Reddit folks are split on the question, with some saying that "the trap" set by the bullied kid makes him liable.
Link: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/e6vi0/a_relative_of_a_close_friend_helped_a_school/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I must be dense. Please clarify for me. As I understand it Brian helped himself to something that was not his (i.e. stole) and when it turned out that what he got was not what he expected his family wants to sue the boy from whom he stole for having urinated into his own bottle? Is this a correct understanding? If it is then God bless America, because no one else could possibly do so. If I have misunderstood please correct me.
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Um...like this guy kept stealing my Mountain Dew. So like I drank it before class and then like had to pee real bad. The bottle was empty so like I used it and put it back in my bag. I didn't tell him to drink it."
Possession of a bottle of pee is not criminal, the lawyers are going to have a field day with this one. "Todd" is not responsible for the actions of another just because he knows the boy is going to commit a criminal act. What foolish school administrators, they handled this the wrong way. I smell the ACLU approaching in the distance.
Drinking pee is not dangerous, just disgusting. There are doctors who suggest drinking your own pee is healthy as it returns valuable nutrients to the body. No wonder I distrust doctors.
I wish "Todd" luck, no wonder bullies flourish, they seem to be a protected species.
Age appears to be best in four things; old wood best to burn, old wine to drink, old friends to trust, and old authors to read. (Sir Francis Bacon 1561-1626)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
God Bless America!
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I recall a story about an elderly man who was sent to prison for murder. It seems the fellow had been plagued with burglars in his home whenever he left town for a brief period of time. It was his plan to prevent this which brought him so much trouble.
Having purchased a shotgun, the man fastened it to a heavy chair in his kitchen and pointed it at the back door which was the burglar's favorite entry point. By means of a string attached to the gun and the door it would fire when the door was opened. Unfortunately it worked like a charm.
He was arrested for premeditated murder after he summoned police to the scene. The body of his 16 year old neighbor boy was found on the kitchen floor. If he had been there to shoot the boy himself, which in most states is legal, there would have been no problem. But setting a trap to kill is considered premeditation. The man was given twenty years to think about it behind bars.
Anti-freeze is a posion, clearly marked on the container. Pee is relatively harmless. There is little to compare the two. But then this is America where they arrest elderly men for playing chess in a park:
http://ktar.com/category/odd-news-articles/20101118/Checkmate:-7-arrested-for-playing-chess/
Age appears to be best in four things; old wood best to burn, old wine to drink, old friends to trust, and old authors to read. (Sir Francis Bacon 1561-1626)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
But elderly men are paedophiles on the basis that everyone else is younger than they are!
Could have been the TSA though
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But antifreeze is sweet, while pee is not... don't ask how I know that. I'm not even sure of the relevance, or why I'm even posting this 
I prefer guys that don't come in a box.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DesDownunder
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Registered: September 2010
Messages: 127
|
|
|
In Australia you cannot set a "man-trap" which is a premeditated trap to harm or confine another person.
So if you arranged a a gun to fire at a door if it was opened, or made it impossible for the criminal to leave the scene of the crime by sealing the doors so he could not open them, then you have set a man-trap. Similarly electric fences, holes onto which one could fall without realising the danger, would also be considered a man-trap. Warning signs do not always alleviate responsibility for the person setting the trap. Indeed it can be argued that a warning sign of a danger is an admittance that it is known by the person arranging the danger that it is in fact dangerous and is therefore accountable for the danger should harm result because of the danger.
Some things are not dangerous, such as a loud siren that could damage an intruders hearing, but if he can remove himself from the sound of the siren before harm is done then it is not deemed to be a man-trap.
In all these things there must be an element of "intent to harm" another person.
As the pee is not physically harmful (according to medical opinion,) then there is no intent to harm, unless it can be proven that the boy knew his pee was a biological hazard due to some medical illness.
However, the harm in this case may well be considered embarrassment of a cruel and disturbing nature. Given the age and circumstances of the bullying of the boy, I'd like to think that in Australia we would tell the bully that he got what he deserved and hope that he would now stop being a brat.
Given the US penchant for litigation now influencing us and other nations, it is more likely that a case would be brought before a court. In such case along with any counter case for the bullying, there would be much sense in trying to mediate an out of court settlement in the matter without recording criminal records for either boy.
The bullying issue itself may warrant suspension or expulsion, but if some degree of remorse is expressed then again we might hope for a more common sense outcome.
There is a much more serious side to this spiking of a drink in terms of a date rape where a person is slipped a drug for the express purpose of sexually molesting another person.
When we consider this we can perhaps see that pee has not be proven to incapacitate another person for ulterior motives other than revenge for the bullying. This is a different matter.
If the situation occurred between adults, say, in a workplace environment, then the situation does take on a more serious tone, both from the point of view of the bully and the pee in a bottle. There are mechanisms in the workplace to address such actions and reactions, even if they are stacked in favour of bullying management types.
But we are discussing school children who often act and react without understanding their full implications. Discipline of both boys needs to be seen as an opportunity to address them for their actions without making it a case for death by stoning, although the thought of more violent reactions in the school environment is a worry that makes me very nervous, given the horrors we have seen in recent times.
DesDownunder
Call me naive if you want, but life without trust in the goodness of others would be intolerable.
Religious indoctrination: It gets better, without it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
You may be thinking of a decades old scandal with Austrian wines
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just love this post as I pulled almost the same stunt at age 17. My best pal and I were at a bush party and the neighborhood bully kept coming over to us, pushing us out of the way and stealing our beer right out of our hands. Pat and I decided to fill one of the empties with piss. The guy inevitably came back for another and Pat was holding the bottle. He stole the bottle away as usual and we both stood and watched him take a long drink, consuming approximately half of it. We were prepared to run for our lives, but he was apparently so drunk by this time that he appeared to not even notice and just walked away with "beer" in hand. We were rolling on the ground laughing after that, but he never did come back for another... go figure.
He was still alive the next weekend, so apparently no harm was done. I am glad this boy did the same thing. Why do laws always protect the people who are in the wrong?
I prefer guys that don't come in a box.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Golden Revenge On A Bully 
