Texas mom arrested after her bully-revenge drink hospitalizes child

[MagicFox]

Sec. 42.07. HARASSMENT. (a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass another, the person:
(1) initiates communication and in the course of the communication makes a comment, request, suggestion, or proposal that is obscene;
(2) threatens, in a manner reasonably likely to alarm the person receiving the threat, to inflict bodily injury on the person or to commit a felony against the person, a member of the person’s family or household, or the person’s property;

The harm is harassment with a threat to cause bodily harm, here, making the person nauseous with an unknown (to the subject) substance, and potentially a threat of even worse to come.

Vinegar, salt, and lemon juice isn’t harmful. Neither is flour, yet put it in an envelope and mail it to a Congress critter and you have a threat of bodily harm. What matters is at the time the threat was made or received was it reasonable to perceive it as a threat. This part is open to interpretation. It could be the bully gaming the system in their favor, but it could also be reasonable for a bully to interpret it as “today it’s salt and vinegar. Tomorrow rat poison.”

I get it. I have no sympathy for the bully, and every for the bully’s victim. I did similar to my middle school bullies: ex-lax brownies and oyster sauce in bottled Pepsi. I did it to the lunch thief at work. But that doesn’t make it right or legal.

[DukeTrout]

Where would that fear have come from? If the mom had included a note, “You have been poisoned!” sure. If the bullied kid had shouted it angrily at the bully, sure. But those seem like things that would have been emphasized in the reporting.

If the answer is “guilt,” then we know who caused that harm. The bully did. To himself.

@MagicFox

The harm is harassment with a threat to cause bodily harm, here, making the person nauseous with an unknown (to the subject) substance, and potentially a threat of even worse to come.

Harrassment requires at least basic communication. There was no direct contact or indirect communication from the mom to the bully. It can’t be harrassment without communication of the threat.

ETA: I deleted most of my remaining posts. It’s not my intent to flood this thread will relivedand rehashed emotions from my childhood.

@Jesse13927 @MagicFox: I really do get what you are saying, but we differ on some key points, mainly that I think that the flavor of a saltier, sourer Gatorade is an insufficient medium to convey a threat in the absence of other written or verbal communication. I think that’s fucking ludicrous, but further discussion is pointless because the whole discussion has gone fully around the bend.

[Jesse13927]

Yeah, as I mentioned above, the definition of assault is quite broad and includes the fear of harm in the absence of actual harm (and even in the absence of intent to harm).

[Jesse13927]

@DukeTrout

Where would that fear have come from?

I think that a person who has drunk something that tastes off can reasonably fear that they have been poisoned. It doesn’t matter if the fear was later revealed to be unfounded.

@Jesse13927

“However, the crime of assault can encompass acts in which no battery is intended, but the defendant’s act nonetheless creates reasonable fear in others that a battery will occur.”

Again, it is quite ridiculous that they actually arrested her for this, but concepts like “harm,” “fear” and “harassment” have much broader meanings in the field of law than in common parlance.

ETA: It gives me no pleasure to say all of this. The laws are written this way to make sure that no malicious act slips through the cracks, but strict readings of the laws can also be weaponized in cases like this. Police and prosecutorial discretion is essential for society to function, and this is what happens when that is lacking. Hopefully, the DA will toss the charges out.

[MagicFox]

“Communication” doesn’t have to be verbal or written. It can be implied. For example, silent stalking. Or someone on the highway following someone else menacingly after being cut off. It’s about “sending a message.” Which can be non-verbal.

@frauenfelder

There is also a sentiment that the mother was trying to protect her son in the absence of effective school intervention. Justine Alvarez-Gonzalez writes, "Apparently the bully has parents that work at the school, that explains so much more.

Assuming the above is accurate, what we don’t know is whether the mother complained about the bullying, or tried to speak with the bully’s parents about the bullying. If so, that would be considered communication. Mother speaks with school/parents about bullying. Bullying doesn’t stop. Mother prepares a little recipe that allegedly makes the bully nauseous (could be high acidity level of the lemon juice and vinegar, which can cause an upset stomach, especially if empty) and gives the bully a headache (could be the salt — I get a massive headache when I consume too much salt). Bully’s parents get alarmed that a nurse, someone who knows what can mess people up as well as make them better, just sent a liquid message to the family to stop the bullying — or else.

This would all meet the reasonable person test for an interpretation of a threat of bodily harm.

Is this what happened? Are the bully’s parents over reacting? Are they faking it? At this point we don’t know, and how these sort of incidents play out, we may never know. But it is sufficient to meet the threshold of “a crime may have been committed” which resulted in the arrest of the mother.

[Jesse13927]

@DukeTrout

I have apparently been “poisoned” and “assaulted” thousands of times in my life.

Yes, yes you have. And you didn’t file charges because that would be ridiculous. But you probably could have in many cases. And that’s what happened in this case. It is an absurdly strict reading of the law, but it is consistent with the law.

[Jesse13927]

That’s just it. The law, and how it is all too often applied and enforced, is fucking crazy. That’s the message of all this. They arrested her because they could. They didn’t arrest her in spite of the fact that they couldn’t.

The law isn’t justice. It’s just the law. It can be weaponized in cases like this.

[MagicFox]

@Jesse13927

And that’s what happened in this case. It is an absurdly strict reading of the law, but it is consistent with the law.

And one of the hallmarks of lawfare.

Like you, my reading and understanding of the law does not mean I support the bully. I fully enjoyed the bully getting their comeuppance while knowing full well that what she did meets the statutes of a crime.

I hope charges will be dropped, as there are better use of resources, and no one will come out of the resulting legal battle unscathed.

[Jesse13927]

@DukeTrout

A strict reading of the law would assess whether:

No, not would. Should. It just doesn’t happen that way.

Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person’s spouse; or

(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.22.htm

Here, the term “threaten” is broadly defined and requires no verbal communication.
The term “physical contact” does not necessarily mean interpersonal and can include contact between a person and a fluid.

Intent is a matter at question, but that’s for a jury to decide if it comes to that.

Again, it gives me no pleasure to say all of this.

[Jesse13927]

@DukeTrout

None of the above can be fulfilled when it all occurs in the “victim’s” imagination.

I am sorry, but by that logic, it would be impossible to charge anyone for any kind of threat, stalking, throwing objects at people (“I wasn’t aiming to hit him; he had no reason to be afraid because it missed him by a mile.”), throwing a punch at someone that does not land, etc. You cannot sweep things under the rug with “no harm was done or intended.”

Jury trials exist to determine harm, “reasonable” fear of harm and intent. Should a jury find her innocent? Sure! But it just plain simply is not the criteria for determining whether or not there should be a jury trial. It’s one person’s word against another, and there is no way to factually prove or disprove intent or fear, so it comes down to what a jury believes. That’s just how it is.

[MagicFox]

@DukeTrout

What is it about this situation that makes people compare it to things it manifestly isn’t!?!

You stated that no verbal or written communication was made. My point was it isn’t necessary to send a formal letter on embossed paper, or to whisper in a gravelly Batman voice for a threat to be communicated. Then, I gave examples of how threatening non-verbal messages can be communicated. I did not imply that these specific incidents happened, just that communication can, indeed, happen without it being written or verbal.

Just as it could very well be, and most likely in my opinion is that the bully’s family are crying crocodile tears and decided to engage in lawfare against the mother, she’s not going to get out of this mess by trying to play lawyerball by claiming that she didn’t write a note or make a threatening phone call. And it isn’t necessary. The threat can be implied, and all it needs is to be what a “reasonable” person would consider a threat at the time of the incident. Not after, not once all the facts are in and the investigation done. Not what the other party intended. What the receiving party could reasonably consider a threat at the time of the incident. “Weird tasting drink that made me feel ill” fits the bill nicely.

During the investigation the police could decide to stop investigating. Once the investigation is done, the prosecutor could decide not to pursue the case. The bully’s family could decide to drop the charges. This may all still happen. But whether we like it or not (I definitely do not like), the law is on the bully’s side. They probably know this, too for the reasons @Vicambulator describes above.

[DukeTrout]

@Jesse13927

I am sorry, but by that logic, it would be impossible to charge anyone for any kind of threat, stalking, throwing objects at people (“I wasn’t aiming to hit him; he had no reason to be afraid because it missed him by a mile.”), throwing a punch at someone that does not land, etc. You cannot sweep things under the rug with “no harm was done or intended.”

Again with comparing this to things it isn’t. All of those things involve evidence. There actually has to be evidence of a crime, reasonably, to charge someone with it.

If there was a threat, was it written? Was it verbal and witnessed? None of that happened here.

If there was stalking, was there evidence of the stalking? None of that happened here.

If rocks were thrown, were there witnesses? DNA or clothing fibers on the rock? None of that happened here.

Was there punching? NO. None of that happened here.

It’s really frustrating to be on this side of this discussion when you say that “by that logic” and list out crimes for which there would be 1. Evidence of actual harm, 2. Evidence of intent to harm, or 3. A documented or witnessed threat. And when any of the above actually happens in real life but there is no evidence of it, the police DO NOTHING. Because they can’t charge someone unless they have evidence of a crime.

@MagicFox

I did not imply that these specific incidents happened, just that communication can, indeed, happen without it being written or verbal.

It’s still not clear how this threat was non verbally delivered. Are you saying the bully is some kind of sommelier of intimidation? That’s a fascinating concept, but I would imagine it would be difficult to establish.

Again, if the harm or threat was imagined and not real and not communicated, but rather inferred, that does not meet the criteria you cited for assault - by the strict letter of the law.

[Jesse13927]

@DukeTrout

Again with comparing this to things it isn’t. All of those things involve evidence.

I am sorry, but are you saying that the bully did not drink something that was purportedly Gatorade but was not? Does the “Gatorade” bottle no longer exist? Did the bully not go to the hospital? Was there no toxicology report? Or even an examination? Did the police not take statements from the mother, her son and the bully?

I don’t know what you think constitutes evidence, but there is plenty of evidence that something happened here. Whether or not that something adds up to a guilty verdict is for a jury to decide.

ETA: My point with those other crimes that I mentioned is that emotional duress is harm. A hospital bill is harm. And it was not unreasonable to go to the hospital because who knew what the bully drank at the time.

[Jesse13927]

@DukeTrout

If it comes out that the bully’s victim told him he was poisoned, then that does represent a threat.

Okay, what if the bully’s victim said nothing and so the bully had no idea what he’d drunk? Are you suggesting that the bully’s victim immediately told the bully that it was actually harmless? It was revealed to have been harmless later. What happened in the moment matters. If the bully had any reason to believe that he had been poisoned, then that’s very different from knowing that it was harmless from the beginning.

@DukeTrout

everything that the bully experienced or claimed to experience was imagined.

Again, what the bully imagined matters here. If you imagine that you are about to die, it doesn’t make everything all hunky dory if you later realize that you had never been in any actual danger and it was all a ruse.

The fact that he was a bully does not make him inhuman or incapable of real emotions. And those emotions still matter. And nobody can prove with any kinds of facts what was or wasn’t in his mind at the time. Same goes for the mother and her son.

[MagicFox]

@DukeTrout

There has to be intent to harm in fact. There has to be a threat in fact. None of the above can be fulfilled when it all occurs in the “victim’s” imagination.

I have to respectfully disagree.

The incident in question is harassment. It isn’t attempted murder, it isn’t reckless endangerment of a child. It is, perversely, harassment. Perversely because the “victim” in this case is harassing the child of the mother who was arrested.

Harassment does not have to be intentional. Think of sexual harassment, especially a hostile workplace situation where men might put up playboy centerfolds making women (and maybe some men) in the workplace uncomfortable. That is harassment. The person putting up the centerfold may not have done so in malice, or with the intent to make anyone uncomfortable but it still is a hostile and harassing work environment. Or an older male worker calling his women colleagues “girl.” maybe to him anyone ten years or more younger to him is “girl” and he thinks nothing of it, or maybe he is originally from Russia where being called a “woman” is to imply someone is old and undesirable, and thinks he is being respectful. But the women feel harassed and demeaned.

Harm has a fuzzy definition, but it includes physical, psychological, reputations, professional, and financial harm. It just means something negative came out of the harassment.

A threat can be perceived. Again, to look to sexual harassment as an example: a supervisor hits on a subordinate. The supervisor may be genuinely attracted to the subordinate, and will think nothing of it if the subordinate doesn’t have reciprocal feelings, but the subordinate may perceive a threat to their employment and career if they reject their supervisor.

Or, closer to the situation at hand, think of someone who likes to play practical jokes. They may think nothing of it and mean no harm, but someone else may feel harassed and threatened.

As @Jesse13927 mentions, harassment laws are crafty, rightfully so, to protect victims is situations where physical harm doesn’t happen, and it is difficult to prove “intent” (such as stalking — hurting the victim may be furthest from their mind, and they may have done no physical harm, but they freak the fuck out of their victim to the point the victim fears for their safety).

This doesn’t mean the laws can’t be abused by bad actors to harm actual victims. That’s one reason why discretion is granted to police, prosecutors, and judges. At each step it can be decided that the case is ridiculous and be dropped or thrown out. But it can also be weaponized.

It also gives me no pleasure to say that in this situation the requirements of misdemeanor harassment have been met.

[Jesse13927]

@DukeTrout

What the bully imagined is definitely not relevant as to whether a threat was delivered or intended. No one is responsible for his conclusions or interpretations but himself.

I am sorry, but that is simply and patently incorrect. The bully was not suffering from paranoid delusions. He was reacting to something that somebody else did.

[MagicFox]

@DukeTrout

Are you saying the bully is some kind of sommelier of intimidation?

A kid I pick on and steal drinks from, and who any living, breathing, sentient being can understand hates me because of this, has a drink in a Gatorade bottle that tastes s weird and makes me feel nauseous and gives me a headache.

It isn’t paranoia to make the leap to “oh, shit! Was I poisoned?”

Did he make that leap? We don’t know. Did he conspire with his parents to get revenge on the kid and his mother for trying to fight back? We also don’t know.

But it isn’t unreasonable to think poison in this scenario, and it was definitely intended as a message to stop stealing Gatorade and leave the kid alone, which is where we are.

[Gordon_Simpson]

Since we are following the law to the letter, why hasn’t the bully be charged with theft, intimidation and harassment? Seems like none of this would have happened if his crimes were dealt with sooner. If people in authority did what they should do then parents might not be so compelled to take matters in to their own hands.

[anon77190095]

Yes, that’s the point. Anything can be poison, given a large enough dose.

[Jesse13927]

@DukeTrout

I really do get what you are saying, but we differ on some key points

I know that you are arguing about what’s right while I am arguing about what the law says and does. For what it’s worth, I fully agree with you about what’s right in this case.

I’m not trying to say that the law is right or wrong, just that it’s not the same thing as right and wrong. And the same laws that are meant to protect people from harassment and abuse can be weaponized to further harassment and abuse. It’s not right, but it’s how the law works. And it’s a damn shame.