A student slipped a drug into my coffee — what are the legal ramifications of this situation?

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP

up vote
72
down vote

favorite

7

I am a high school Chemistry teacher. This morning, while my back was turned to write on the board, one of my students (age 17) slipped a pill into my coffee mug. This is a thermos-style mug that has a screw-on lid with a small opening; it was obviously a deliberate act).

About 30 minutes later, when the bell rang to change classes, another student stayed behind to tell me NOT to drink anymore coffee "because [student name] put a white pill in it". Apparently, all 22 of my other students had witnessed this and even clapped and laughed as the perp ran back to her seat when I turned around. I had no idea what had happened and continued drinking my coffee as usual until the 2nd student warned me to stop.

I quickly went to be checked out by the school nurse who checked my vitals and found an irregular, rapid heartbeat and high blood pressure (both unusual for me). I was sent to the urgent care / occupational med clinic and underwent 3 hours of testing (x-rays, ekg, drug screening, etc). Luckily, no residual problems.

While I was gone, the student was searched and "Herbal Viagra" was found. She admitted to putting it into my coffee. She was suspended for 5 days. I told the school resource officer that I wanted to file charges against her and he said all she'll get is a "citation" because it isn't actually "criminal". Maybe it's because it wasn't a controlled substance. I can't believe that it's NOT A CRIME to drug someone without their knowledge or consent. Herbal supplements can interact with other meds wreaking havoc on a body. She doesn't know what meds I already take or what allergies I have. I was lucky... this could have turned out far worse than it did.

What are the legal ramifications of this situation? Is it a criminal act? What about the other 21 students who saw what happened and did/said nothing; just watched me ingest the medicine? Are they not accessories?

I live in Louisiana, by the way. Not sure if that matters.

criminal-law education louisiana

share|improve this question

edited 14 mins ago

grooveplex

1032

asked 2 days ago

Hayley LJ

339126

New contributor

Hayley LJ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Please note that this site is for general information about the law, and is not intended to give individualized advice. We can help you learn about laws that might apply, but we can't answer what any particular person is or isn't guilty of. This site isn't a substitute for actually hiring a lawyer.
  – Nate Eldredge
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  14
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Nij I rolled back your edit as it certainly removed relevant information. For instance, that students "even clapped and laughed" constitutes assenting of a crime, and that could subject those complicit students to the criminal statute regarding accessories. It is fine for an OP to substantiate her position as to why that conduct merits a more serious sanction. When OPs do so, it helps us identify what (if anything) is missing in their rationale and clarify accordingly. Keeping OP's expression "Luckily" does no harm at all, and it shows we have some tact about her understandable concern.
  – Iñaki Viggers
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
  – feetwet♦
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  For the record: Nij's edits to the question were appropriate and helpful given our customs and rules for several reasons: (1) As originally written, it's tricky to determine what the legal question(s) are here. (2) While no requests for specific legal advice were apparent, such levels of personal and non-hypothetical detail are discouraged because this site is for questions of law, not general self-help. (3) It was also unclear whether names were pseudonymous (as they should be, and as we will assume they were).
  – feetwet♦
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  In this case, we will leave the more rambling form of the question for three reasons: (1) Details that could have been removed have already been referenced in answers. (2) While not an exemplary question, as written it does not violate any rules or policies. (3) We must avoid "edit wars." That said: If you find the question as written unclear, not useful, or lacking in effort, you can click the downvote button to register your displeasure.
  – feetwet♦
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
72
down vote

favorite

7

I am a high school Chemistry teacher. This morning, while my back was turned to write on the board, one of my students (age 17) slipped a pill into my coffee mug. This is a thermos-style mug that has a screw-on lid with a small opening; it was obviously a deliberate act).

About 30 minutes later, when the bell rang to change classes, another student stayed behind to tell me NOT to drink anymore coffee "because [student name] put a white pill in it". Apparently, all 22 of my other students had witnessed this and even clapped and laughed as the perp ran back to her seat when I turned around. I had no idea what had happened and continued drinking my coffee as usual until the 2nd student warned me to stop.

I quickly went to be checked out by the school nurse who checked my vitals and found an irregular, rapid heartbeat and high blood pressure (both unusual for me). I was sent to the urgent care / occupational med clinic and underwent 3 hours of testing (x-rays, ekg, drug screening, etc). Luckily, no residual problems.

While I was gone, the student was searched and "Herbal Viagra" was found. She admitted to putting it into my coffee. She was suspended for 5 days. I told the school resource officer that I wanted to file charges against her and he said all she'll get is a "citation" because it isn't actually "criminal". Maybe it's because it wasn't a controlled substance. I can't believe that it's NOT A CRIME to drug someone without their knowledge or consent. Herbal supplements can interact with other meds wreaking havoc on a body. She doesn't know what meds I already take or what allergies I have. I was lucky... this could have turned out far worse than it did.

What are the legal ramifications of this situation? Is it a criminal act? What about the other 21 students who saw what happened and did/said nothing; just watched me ingest the medicine? Are they not accessories?

I live in Louisiana, by the way. Not sure if that matters.

criminal-law education louisiana

share|improve this question

edited 14 mins ago

grooveplex

1032

asked 2 days ago

Hayley LJ

339126

New contributor

Hayley LJ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Please note that this site is for general information about the law, and is not intended to give individualized advice. We can help you learn about laws that might apply, but we can't answer what any particular person is or isn't guilty of. This site isn't a substitute for actually hiring a lawyer.
  – Nate Eldredge
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  14
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Nij I rolled back your edit as it certainly removed relevant information. For instance, that students "even clapped and laughed" constitutes assenting of a crime, and that could subject those complicit students to the criminal statute regarding accessories. It is fine for an OP to substantiate her position as to why that conduct merits a more serious sanction. When OPs do so, it helps us identify what (if anything) is missing in their rationale and clarify accordingly. Keeping OP's expression "Luckily" does no harm at all, and it shows we have some tact about her understandable concern.
  – Iñaki Viggers
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
  – feetwet♦
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  For the record: Nij's edits to the question were appropriate and helpful given our customs and rules for several reasons: (1) As originally written, it's tricky to determine what the legal question(s) are here. (2) While no requests for specific legal advice were apparent, such levels of personal and non-hypothetical detail are discouraged because this site is for questions of law, not general self-help. (3) It was also unclear whether names were pseudonymous (as they should be, and as we will assume they were).
  – feetwet♦
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  In this case, we will leave the more rambling form of the question for three reasons: (1) Details that could have been removed have already been referenced in answers. (2) While not an exemplary question, as written it does not violate any rules or policies. (3) We must avoid "edit wars." That said: If you find the question as written unclear, not useful, or lacking in effort, you can click the downvote button to register your displeasure.
  – feetwet♦
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
72
down vote

favorite

7

up vote
72
down vote

favorite

7

7

I am a high school Chemistry teacher. This morning, while my back was turned to write on the board, one of my students (age 17) slipped a pill into my coffee mug. This is a thermos-style mug that has a screw-on lid with a small opening; it was obviously a deliberate act).

About 30 minutes later, when the bell rang to change classes, another student stayed behind to tell me NOT to drink anymore coffee "because [student name] put a white pill in it". Apparently, all 22 of my other students had witnessed this and even clapped and laughed as the perp ran back to her seat when I turned around. I had no idea what had happened and continued drinking my coffee as usual until the 2nd student warned me to stop.

I quickly went to be checked out by the school nurse who checked my vitals and found an irregular, rapid heartbeat and high blood pressure (both unusual for me). I was sent to the urgent care / occupational med clinic and underwent 3 hours of testing (x-rays, ekg, drug screening, etc). Luckily, no residual problems.

While I was gone, the student was searched and "Herbal Viagra" was found. She admitted to putting it into my coffee. She was suspended for 5 days. I told the school resource officer that I wanted to file charges against her and he said all she'll get is a "citation" because it isn't actually "criminal". Maybe it's because it wasn't a controlled substance. I can't believe that it's NOT A CRIME to drug someone without their knowledge or consent. Herbal supplements can interact with other meds wreaking havoc on a body. She doesn't know what meds I already take or what allergies I have. I was lucky... this could have turned out far worse than it did.

What are the legal ramifications of this situation? Is it a criminal act? What about the other 21 students who saw what happened and did/said nothing; just watched me ingest the medicine? Are they not accessories?

I live in Louisiana, by the way. Not sure if that matters.

criminal-law education louisiana

share|improve this question

edited 14 mins ago

grooveplex

1032

asked 2 days ago

Hayley LJ

339126

New contributor

Hayley LJ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

I am a high school Chemistry teacher. This morning, while my back was turned to write on the board, one of my students (age 17) slipped a pill into my coffee mug. This is a thermos-style mug that has a screw-on lid with a small opening; it was obviously a deliberate act).

About 30 minutes later, when the bell rang to change classes, another student stayed behind to tell me NOT to drink anymore coffee "because [student name] put a white pill in it". Apparently, all 22 of my other students had witnessed this and even clapped and laughed as the perp ran back to her seat when I turned around. I had no idea what had happened and continued drinking my coffee as usual until the 2nd student warned me to stop.

I quickly went to be checked out by the school nurse who checked my vitals and found an irregular, rapid heartbeat and high blood pressure (both unusual for me). I was sent to the urgent care / occupational med clinic and underwent 3 hours of testing (x-rays, ekg, drug screening, etc). Luckily, no residual problems.

While I was gone, the student was searched and "Herbal Viagra" was found. She admitted to putting it into my coffee. She was suspended for 5 days. I told the school resource officer that I wanted to file charges against her and he said all she'll get is a "citation" because it isn't actually "criminal". Maybe it's because it wasn't a controlled substance. I can't believe that it's NOT A CRIME to drug someone without their knowledge or consent. Herbal supplements can interact with other meds wreaking havoc on a body. She doesn't know what meds I already take or what allergies I have. I was lucky... this could have turned out far worse than it did.

What are the legal ramifications of this situation? Is it a criminal act? What about the other 21 students who saw what happened and did/said nothing; just watched me ingest the medicine? Are they not accessories?

I live in Louisiana, by the way. Not sure if that matters.

criminal-law education louisiana

criminal-law education louisiana

share|improve this question

edited 14 mins ago

grooveplex

1032

asked 2 days ago

Hayley LJ

339126

New contributor

Hayley LJ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

share|improve this question

edited 14 mins ago

grooveplex

1032

asked 2 days ago

Hayley LJ

339126

New contributor

Hayley LJ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

share|improve this question

share|improve this question

edited 14 mins ago

grooveplex

1032

edited 14 mins ago

grooveplex

1032

edited 14 mins ago

grooveplex

1032

1032

asked 2 days ago

Hayley LJ

339126

New contributor

Hayley LJ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

asked 2 days ago

Hayley LJ

339126

asked 2 days ago

Hayley LJ

339126

339126

New contributor

Hayley LJ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

New contributor

Hayley LJ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

Hayley LJ is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Please note that this site is for general information about the law, and is not intended to give individualized advice. We can help you learn about laws that might apply, but we can't answer what any particular person is or isn't guilty of. This site isn't a substitute for actually hiring a lawyer.
  – Nate Eldredge
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  14
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Nij I rolled back your edit as it certainly removed relevant information. For instance, that students "even clapped and laughed" constitutes assenting of a crime, and that could subject those complicit students to the criminal statute regarding accessories. It is fine for an OP to substantiate her position as to why that conduct merits a more serious sanction. When OPs do so, it helps us identify what (if anything) is missing in their rationale and clarify accordingly. Keeping OP's expression "Luckily" does no harm at all, and it shows we have some tact about her understandable concern.
  – Iñaki Viggers
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
  – feetwet♦
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  For the record: Nij's edits to the question were appropriate and helpful given our customs and rules for several reasons: (1) As originally written, it's tricky to determine what the legal question(s) are here. (2) While no requests for specific legal advice were apparent, such levels of personal and non-hypothetical detail are discouraged because this site is for questions of law, not general self-help. (3) It was also unclear whether names were pseudonymous (as they should be, and as we will assume they were).
  – feetwet♦
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  In this case, we will leave the more rambling form of the question for three reasons: (1) Details that could have been removed have already been referenced in answers. (2) While not an exemplary question, as written it does not violate any rules or policies. (3) We must avoid "edit wars." That said: If you find the question as written unclear, not useful, or lacking in effort, you can click the downvote button to register your displeasure.
  – feetwet♦
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Please note that this site is for general information about the law, and is not intended to give individualized advice. We can help you learn about laws that might apply, but we can't answer what any particular person is or isn't guilty of. This site isn't a substitute for actually hiring a lawyer.
  – Nate Eldredge
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  14
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Nij I rolled back your edit as it certainly removed relevant information. For instance, that students "even clapped and laughed" constitutes assenting of a crime, and that could subject those complicit students to the criminal statute regarding accessories. It is fine for an OP to substantiate her position as to why that conduct merits a more serious sanction. When OPs do so, it helps us identify what (if anything) is missing in their rationale and clarify accordingly. Keeping OP's expression "Luckily" does no harm at all, and it shows we have some tact about her understandable concern.
  – Iñaki Viggers
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
  – feetwet♦
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  For the record: Nij's edits to the question were appropriate and helpful given our customs and rules for several reasons: (1) As originally written, it's tricky to determine what the legal question(s) are here. (2) While no requests for specific legal advice were apparent, such levels of personal and non-hypothetical detail are discouraged because this site is for questions of law, not general self-help. (3) It was also unclear whether names were pseudonymous (as they should be, and as we will assume they were).
  – feetwet♦
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  In this case, we will leave the more rambling form of the question for three reasons: (1) Details that could have been removed have already been referenced in answers. (2) While not an exemplary question, as written it does not violate any rules or policies. (3) We must avoid "edit wars." That said: If you find the question as written unclear, not useful, or lacking in effort, you can click the downvote button to register your displeasure.
  – feetwet♦
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  

1

1

Please note that this site is for general information about the law, and is not intended to give individualized advice. We can help you learn about laws that might apply, but we can't answer what any particular person is or isn't guilty of. This site isn't a substitute for actually hiring a lawyer.
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday

Please note that this site is for general information about the law, and is not intended to give individualized advice. We can help you learn about laws that might apply, but we can't answer what any particular person is or isn't guilty of. This site isn't a substitute for actually hiring a lawyer.
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday

14

14

@Nij I rolled back your edit as it certainly removed relevant information. For instance, that students "even clapped and laughed" constitutes assenting of a crime, and that could subject those complicit students to the criminal statute regarding accessories. It is fine for an OP to substantiate her position as to why that conduct merits a more serious sanction. When OPs do so, it helps us identify what (if anything) is missing in their rationale and clarify accordingly. Keeping OP's expression "Luckily" does no harm at all, and it shows we have some tact about her understandable concern.
– Iñaki Viggers
yesterday

@Nij I rolled back your edit as it certainly removed relevant information. For instance, that students "even clapped and laughed" constitutes assenting of a crime, and that could subject those complicit students to the criminal statute regarding accessories. It is fine for an OP to substantiate her position as to why that conduct merits a more serious sanction. When OPs do so, it helps us identify what (if anything) is missing in their rationale and clarify accordingly. Keeping OP's expression "Luckily" does no harm at all, and it shows we have some tact about her understandable concern.
– Iñaki Viggers
yesterday

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– feetwet♦
yesterday

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– feetwet♦
yesterday

3

3

For the record: Nij's edits to the question were appropriate and helpful given our customs and rules for several reasons: (1) As originally written, it's tricky to determine what the legal question(s) are here. (2) While no requests for specific legal advice were apparent, such levels of personal and non-hypothetical detail are discouraged because this site is for questions of law, not general self-help. (3) It was also unclear whether names were pseudonymous (as they should be, and as we will assume they were).
– feetwet♦
yesterday

For the record: Nij's edits to the question were appropriate and helpful given our customs and rules for several reasons: (1) As originally written, it's tricky to determine what the legal question(s) are here. (2) While no requests for specific legal advice were apparent, such levels of personal and non-hypothetical detail are discouraged because this site is for questions of law, not general self-help. (3) It was also unclear whether names were pseudonymous (as they should be, and as we will assume they were).
– feetwet♦
yesterday

3

3

In this case, we will leave the more rambling form of the question for three reasons: (1) Details that could have been removed have already been referenced in answers. (2) While not an exemplary question, as written it does not violate any rules or policies. (3) We must avoid "edit wars." That said: If you find the question as written unclear, not useful, or lacking in effort, you can click the downvote button to register your displeasure.
– feetwet♦
yesterday

In this case, we will leave the more rambling form of the question for three reasons: (1) Details that could have been removed have already been referenced in answers. (2) While not an exemplary question, as written it does not violate any rules or policies. (3) We must avoid "edit wars." That said: If you find the question as written unclear, not useful, or lacking in effort, you can click the downvote button to register your displeasure.
– feetwet♦
yesterday

add a comment | 

5 Answers
5

active

oldest

votes

up vote
73
down vote

If the pill contained a harmful or noxious substance, this is battery, which is a crime in Lousiana ("the intentional administration of a poison or other noxious liquid or substance to another"). There is a specific crime in LA, battery of a teacher, which is dealt with somewhat more severely than non-teacher battery.

It is not a crime to observe a crime being committed and not warn the victim, but it is a crime to aid the commission of the crime (for example to help the perp remove the lid, to supply the drug). Under section Title 17, a teacher battered by a student can file a school-system internal complaint which may lead to the student being expelled (this is ultimately covered by district-specific procedure). This is independent of criminal charges.

share|improve this answer

edited 9 hours ago

answered 2 days ago

user6726

52.4k24491

• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  What is the basis for your conclusion that the substance was "a poison or other noxious liquid"?
  – Hasse1987
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  51
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Hasse1987 I’m not sure of the precise legal reasoning, but spiking someone’s food or drink with a recreational drug is considered an assault, battery or poisoning in every jurisdiction I’m aware of, and the argument that it didn’t cause any harm doesn’t seem to hold any water. (Slapping someone doesn’t cause any harm either, it’s still battery.) Furthermore, I’d suggest that a substance inducing a rapid, irregular heartbeat and high blood pressure fits the standard legal definition of a noxious substance in the US.
  – HopelessN00b
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Say, hypothetically, that the substance put into the drink were 100% inert, e.g. if it were a placebo pill, that didn't cause any physical harm to the teacher. Still, the teacher seems to have a legitimate basis to fear for their health, which would imply.. what? I mean, would that still constitute something like intimidation?
  – Nat
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
  – feetwet♦
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
51
down vote

I told the school resource officer that I wanted to file charges
against her and he said all she'll get is a "citation" because it
isn't actually "criminal".

The school resource officer should be fired for jumping to inept conclusions instead of bothering to conduct at least a minimum of legal research on this. It would have taken him less than 20 minutes to realize that RS 14:38.1 sanctions with imprisonment the intentional mingling of harmful substances with someone's drink.

What about the other 21 students who saw what happened and did/said
nothing; just watched me ingest the medicine? Are they not
accessories?

Yes, they are what Louisiana law would call accessories after the fact. They might be sanctioned under RS 14:25 if it can be substantiated that their silence/concealment implies their intent that the girl who mingled the substance "escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment." (emphasis added).

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

Iñaki Viggers

3,6841315

• 
  
  
  

  
  12
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I don't think "accessoryies after the fact" is relevant here. For example, this article notes a case where the judge decided that "mere non-disclosure of knowledge of a felony committed by another is not a crime; the conduct of the accused must be such as to make him an accessory after the fact." So unless others actively hid what the student did (e.g. hid the pack of pills she used), I don't think they are guilty. Would you mind editing that part?
  – sleske
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @sleske Thanks for the article. It actually strengthens my point. See the citation of Blackstone in the next paragraph: "if he assented [to the crime] this makes him either principal or accessory". Before others mutilated the OP's original post, it read that the students "even clapped and laughed as the perp ran back to her seat" (see the history of edits). Therefore, the students clearly assented to that crime and even allowed the OP to drink the substance that was mingled in her thermo. Others should have respected the level of relevant detail that OP included in her question.
  – Iñaki Viggers
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Just to play a little devil's advocate/speculate, is it possible to say that every student is now an accessory. I've been in class and not paying attention and something like this could have easily been missed. I think the OP will have a hard time trying to stick a whole classroom with an accessory verdict. Unless there is a camera and they can see who is laughing? Otherwise, those students could simply say they didn't see (aside for the one that warned her after the fact.) Which if that's the case, would then be punishing the only person who intended to mitigate the situation.
  – knocked loose
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  "They might be sanctioned under RS 14:25 if it can be substantiated that their silence/concealment implies their intent that the girl who mingled the substance "escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment." " RS14:25 requires that they help the perpetrator, that they know that they are helping a perpetrator, and they have intent to help a perpetrator. You for some reason quoted only the part of about intent.
  – Acccumulation
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Acccumulation Language in RS 14:25 reads conceal, which is defined as "[to] withhold from the knowledge of others; [...] to withhold from utterance or declaration" (Black's Law Dictionary). That is what the complicit/clapping students did, and then they watched the OP drink the altered substance. That amounts to knowingly helping the perpetrator when they should have denounced him and warn the OP not to drink from her thermo.
  – Iñaki Viggers
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

up vote
14
down vote

(Edit: This paragraph is incorrect, per comments below. Left in place so that context for comments is clear.) You are talking to the wrong officer.The school resources officer does not necessarily have any legal background. And more generally, like every other HR person, their primary responsibility is to the organisation and not to the employees. If they can dissuade you from publicising a negative incident more widely, it's reasonable to expect that they will. The person you should be talking to is a police officer.

(Still valid...)
Whether you choose to press charges is up to you, and not to the school. If you do though, make sure you have copies of all evidence relating to the school investigation and the student's suspension, in case it happens to "disappear" and everyone loses their memory.

share|improve this answer

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

Graham

73134

• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I'm not sure how it works in Louisiana, but in most states that I'm familiar with, a school resource officer is a police officer.
  – bdb484
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  This FAQ about "school resource officers" might be a good reference. It does sound like federal regulations require them to be police officers.
  – Nat
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  SROs are one of the reactions to the epidemic of school shootings we've been experiencing. The name makes them sound less intimidating than "armed guard", which is actually what they are.
  – Barmar
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Barmar citation needed. SROs have been around since the 1950s and they do a lot more than act as an "armed guard".
  – TemporalWolf
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Please don't leave material in your answer that you know to be incorrect. The fact that comments refer to it is irrelevant: comments are supposed to be temporary. Please delete the incorrect material and flag the comments that refer to it as "no longer needed".
  – David Richerby
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 8 more comments

up vote
11
down vote

You need the school authorities, police department and prosecutor to take you seriously. Tell the principal and the school board you are looking for a lawyer, and then find one; look in the phone book or online for a personal injury lawyer who gives free initial consultations.

Finding a lawyer will cause the board and school district to take you seriously and properly charge the student and take some sort of disciplinary action against the rest of the class. Since all the kids are talking about it, the school also needs to make a general announcement to the school and the parents that these types of actions are illegal and will be punished.

The lawyer can also talk to to the local city/county prosecutor to see what is appropriate in terms of the relevant local and state criminal codes for youth offenders. You would consult with the lawyer and the prosecutor about encouraging the student to be charged with a crime, i.e. battery of a teacher, as pointed out by user6726 in his answer.

You could also file suit against the school for damages, but you may not need (or want) to actually if the lawyer can make enough noise so that they will take the situation seriously. Depending on what the school board and district does and doesn't do, you could take further action in terms of suing for damages; that would be under the advice of your lawyer.

share|improve this answer

edited 8 hours ago

answered 2 days ago

BlueDogRanch

8,60721635

• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  While doing this may or may not be a good idea, this does not answer the question. The question was not "What should I do?" (which would be off-topic), but "What are the legal ramifications?". Also, I don't think it is a good idea to tell OP what they "should" do - we can outline options, but only OP can decide what to do.
  – sleske
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Also, could you clarify on what basis OP could sue the school for damages? I don't see any wrongdoing on their part.
  – sleske
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @MartinBonner That implies that there's something the school could have done to prevent this. What could that be? Redesign classrooms so the teacher can write on the blackboard without turning away from the students? Install guards or monitors in every classroom?
  – Barmar
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Wumms That way leads to the "zero tolerance" policies that have gotten diabetic students suspended for having insulin in their backpacks.
  – Barmar
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Barmar What about forbidding drinking and eating? IIRC it both was forbidden in my school's chemistry lab (in Germany) since we were experimenting with chemicals on the desks.
  – Wumms
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

up vote
3
down vote

I think the other answers are off-base to the extent that they assume that what the student put in your drink is "noxious," "harmful," or "poison." As you describe it, they put herbs in your coffee, and I don't think that in most cases, one could accurately categorize a commercial herbal supplement as poison. Even if you had special circumstances that made you allergic, I suspect that would only mean that you were particularly vulnerable -- not that the pill was poisonous.

I think a better fit would be RS 14:59, the criminal mischief statute:

Criminal mischief is the intentional performance of any of the following acts:

(1) Tampering with any property of another, without the consent of the owner, with the intent to interfere with the free enjoyment of any rights of anyone thereto, or with the intent to deprive anyone entitled thereto of the full use of the property.

The status of the other classmates is not clear. Louisiana puts participants in crimes in two categories: principals and "accessories after the fact."

Principals are the ones who do the act, help do the act, counsel others to do the act, or procure someone to do the act. If there were students serving as lookouts, egging on the students who put the chemical into your drink, or otherwise pushing the events toward the commission of the offense, those people would be considered principals and would be criminally liable.

Accessories after the fact are those who "harbor, conceal, or aid" an offender to prevent them from being punished. Simply failing to report the crime is typically not enough to trigger accessory liability, nor is refusing to snitch when asked. Affirmatively lying may be enough.

The circumstances here sound serious enough, though, that you should probably consult a real attorney -- maybe through your union, or through an employee-benefits plan -- to go over the specifics and answer the outstanding questions that will lead to the best outcome for you.

share|improve this answer

edited yesterday

answered 2 days ago

bdb484

9,39011332

• 
  
  
  

  
  11
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think the resulting symptoms suffice to put this in the "noxious" category.
  – user6726
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I don't see it. Viagra (and its herbal equivalents) work by reducing blood pressure. Elevated pulse and blood pressure, meanwhile, are pretty classic symptoms of freaking out because you think you've been poisoned. The ER results seem to bear this out.
  – bdb484
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  23
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  "Synthetic cannabis" is not cannabis. "Herbal Viagra" is not Viagra. Very frequently, the drugs do nothing at all like what they are supposed to replicate, and often carry harmful side effects (including well-reported fatalities). This answer makes highly dangerous assumptions from a position of ignorance, just as the school administrator did (i.e. "it's not illegal" and "at most a citation", here "it's not really dangerous").
  – Nij
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  15
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Whether the substance was "noxious" or not, it certainly seems like the student believed it would cause some sort of ill or unwanted effect, and intended to cause such an effect. Could that be the basis for a charge of attempted battery?
  – Nate Eldredge
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  10
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  From the question: "The school nurse checked my vitals and found an irregular, rapid heartbeat and high blood pressure (both unusual for me). I was sent to an emergency care clinic and had testing done (x-rays, EKG, drug screening, etc.). There were no residual problems." - not only did a qualified professional make an examination, but they found noteworthy symptoms. Further, the tests did not come back as "nothing", they came back as "no residual problems". Whether the chemical might have been dangerous is irrelevant; it caused actual harm and therefore clearly was dangerous.
  – Nij
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 14 more comments

protected by feetwet♦ yesterday

Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

5 Answers
5

active

oldest

votes

5 Answers
5

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

active

oldest

votes

up vote
73
down vote

If the pill contained a harmful or noxious substance, this is battery, which is a crime in Lousiana ("the intentional administration of a poison or other noxious liquid or substance to another"). There is a specific crime in LA, battery of a teacher, which is dealt with somewhat more severely than non-teacher battery.

It is not a crime to observe a crime being committed and not warn the victim, but it is a crime to aid the commission of the crime (for example to help the perp remove the lid, to supply the drug). Under section Title 17, a teacher battered by a student can file a school-system internal complaint which may lead to the student being expelled (this is ultimately covered by district-specific procedure). This is independent of criminal charges.

share|improve this answer

edited 9 hours ago

answered 2 days ago

user6726

52.4k24491

• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  What is the basis for your conclusion that the substance was "a poison or other noxious liquid"?
  – Hasse1987
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  51
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Hasse1987 I’m not sure of the precise legal reasoning, but spiking someone’s food or drink with a recreational drug is considered an assault, battery or poisoning in every jurisdiction I’m aware of, and the argument that it didn’t cause any harm doesn’t seem to hold any water. (Slapping someone doesn’t cause any harm either, it’s still battery.) Furthermore, I’d suggest that a substance inducing a rapid, irregular heartbeat and high blood pressure fits the standard legal definition of a noxious substance in the US.
  – HopelessN00b
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Say, hypothetically, that the substance put into the drink were 100% inert, e.g. if it were a placebo pill, that didn't cause any physical harm to the teacher. Still, the teacher seems to have a legitimate basis to fear for their health, which would imply.. what? I mean, would that still constitute something like intimidation?
  – Nat
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
  – feetwet♦
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
73
down vote

If the pill contained a harmful or noxious substance, this is battery, which is a crime in Lousiana ("the intentional administration of a poison or other noxious liquid or substance to another"). There is a specific crime in LA, battery of a teacher, which is dealt with somewhat more severely than non-teacher battery.

It is not a crime to observe a crime being committed and not warn the victim, but it is a crime to aid the commission of the crime (for example to help the perp remove the lid, to supply the drug). Under section Title 17, a teacher battered by a student can file a school-system internal complaint which may lead to the student being expelled (this is ultimately covered by district-specific procedure). This is independent of criminal charges.

share|improve this answer

edited 9 hours ago

answered 2 days ago

user6726

52.4k24491

• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  What is the basis for your conclusion that the substance was "a poison or other noxious liquid"?
  – Hasse1987
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  51
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Hasse1987 I’m not sure of the precise legal reasoning, but spiking someone’s food or drink with a recreational drug is considered an assault, battery or poisoning in every jurisdiction I’m aware of, and the argument that it didn’t cause any harm doesn’t seem to hold any water. (Slapping someone doesn’t cause any harm either, it’s still battery.) Furthermore, I’d suggest that a substance inducing a rapid, irregular heartbeat and high blood pressure fits the standard legal definition of a noxious substance in the US.
  – HopelessN00b
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Say, hypothetically, that the substance put into the drink were 100% inert, e.g. if it were a placebo pill, that didn't cause any physical harm to the teacher. Still, the teacher seems to have a legitimate basis to fear for their health, which would imply.. what? I mean, would that still constitute something like intimidation?
  – Nat
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
  – feetwet♦
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

up vote
73
down vote

up vote
73
down vote

If the pill contained a harmful or noxious substance, this is battery, which is a crime in Lousiana ("the intentional administration of a poison or other noxious liquid or substance to another"). There is a specific crime in LA, battery of a teacher, which is dealt with somewhat more severely than non-teacher battery.

It is not a crime to observe a crime being committed and not warn the victim, but it is a crime to aid the commission of the crime (for example to help the perp remove the lid, to supply the drug). Under section Title 17, a teacher battered by a student can file a school-system internal complaint which may lead to the student being expelled (this is ultimately covered by district-specific procedure). This is independent of criminal charges.

share|improve this answer

edited 9 hours ago

answered 2 days ago

user6726

52.4k24491

If the pill contained a harmful or noxious substance, this is battery, which is a crime in Lousiana ("the intentional administration of a poison or other noxious liquid or substance to another"). There is a specific crime in LA, battery of a teacher, which is dealt with somewhat more severely than non-teacher battery.

It is not a crime to observe a crime being committed and not warn the victim, but it is a crime to aid the commission of the crime (for example to help the perp remove the lid, to supply the drug). Under section Title 17, a teacher battered by a student can file a school-system internal complaint which may lead to the student being expelled (this is ultimately covered by district-specific procedure). This is independent of criminal charges.

share|improve this answer

edited 9 hours ago

answered 2 days ago

user6726

52.4k24491

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited 9 hours ago

edited 9 hours ago

edited 9 hours ago

answered 2 days ago

user6726

52.4k24491

answered 2 days ago

user6726

52.4k24491

answered 2 days ago

user6726

52.4k24491

52.4k24491

• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  What is the basis for your conclusion that the substance was "a poison or other noxious liquid"?
  – Hasse1987
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  51
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Hasse1987 I’m not sure of the precise legal reasoning, but spiking someone’s food or drink with a recreational drug is considered an assault, battery or poisoning in every jurisdiction I’m aware of, and the argument that it didn’t cause any harm doesn’t seem to hold any water. (Slapping someone doesn’t cause any harm either, it’s still battery.) Furthermore, I’d suggest that a substance inducing a rapid, irregular heartbeat and high blood pressure fits the standard legal definition of a noxious substance in the US.
  – HopelessN00b
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Say, hypothetically, that the substance put into the drink were 100% inert, e.g. if it were a placebo pill, that didn't cause any physical harm to the teacher. Still, the teacher seems to have a legitimate basis to fear for their health, which would imply.. what? I mean, would that still constitute something like intimidation?
  – Nat
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
  – feetwet♦
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  What is the basis for your conclusion that the substance was "a poison or other noxious liquid"?
  – Hasse1987
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  51
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Hasse1987 I’m not sure of the precise legal reasoning, but spiking someone’s food or drink with a recreational drug is considered an assault, battery or poisoning in every jurisdiction I’m aware of, and the argument that it didn’t cause any harm doesn’t seem to hold any water. (Slapping someone doesn’t cause any harm either, it’s still battery.) Furthermore, I’d suggest that a substance inducing a rapid, irregular heartbeat and high blood pressure fits the standard legal definition of a noxious substance in the US.
  – HopelessN00b
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Say, hypothetically, that the substance put into the drink were 100% inert, e.g. if it were a placebo pill, that didn't cause any physical harm to the teacher. Still, the teacher seems to have a legitimate basis to fear for their health, which would imply.. what? I mean, would that still constitute something like intimidation?
  – Nat
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
  – feetwet♦
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

3

3

What is the basis for your conclusion that the substance was "a poison or other noxious liquid"?
– Hasse1987
yesterday

What is the basis for your conclusion that the substance was "a poison or other noxious liquid"?
– Hasse1987
yesterday

51

51

@Hasse1987 I’m not sure of the precise legal reasoning, but spiking someone’s food or drink with a recreational drug is considered an assault, battery or poisoning in every jurisdiction I’m aware of, and the argument that it didn’t cause any harm doesn’t seem to hold any water. (Slapping someone doesn’t cause any harm either, it’s still battery.) Furthermore, I’d suggest that a substance inducing a rapid, irregular heartbeat and high blood pressure fits the standard legal definition of a noxious substance in the US.
– HopelessN00b
yesterday

@Hasse1987 I’m not sure of the precise legal reasoning, but spiking someone’s food or drink with a recreational drug is considered an assault, battery or poisoning in every jurisdiction I’m aware of, and the argument that it didn’t cause any harm doesn’t seem to hold any water. (Slapping someone doesn’t cause any harm either, it’s still battery.) Furthermore, I’d suggest that a substance inducing a rapid, irregular heartbeat and high blood pressure fits the standard legal definition of a noxious substance in the US.
– HopelessN00b
yesterday

1

1

Say, hypothetically, that the substance put into the drink were 100% inert, e.g. if it were a placebo pill, that didn't cause any physical harm to the teacher. Still, the teacher seems to have a legitimate basis to fear for their health, which would imply.. what? I mean, would that still constitute something like intimidation?
– Nat
yesterday

Say, hypothetically, that the substance put into the drink were 100% inert, e.g. if it were a placebo pill, that didn't cause any physical harm to the teacher. Still, the teacher seems to have a legitimate basis to fear for their health, which would imply.. what? I mean, would that still constitute something like intimidation?
– Nat
yesterday

1

1

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– feetwet♦
yesterday

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– feetwet♦
yesterday

add a comment | 

up vote
51
down vote

I told the school resource officer that I wanted to file charges
against her and he said all she'll get is a "citation" because it
isn't actually "criminal".

The school resource officer should be fired for jumping to inept conclusions instead of bothering to conduct at least a minimum of legal research on this. It would have taken him less than 20 minutes to realize that RS 14:38.1 sanctions with imprisonment the intentional mingling of harmful substances with someone's drink.

What about the other 21 students who saw what happened and did/said
nothing; just watched me ingest the medicine? Are they not
accessories?

Yes, they are what Louisiana law would call accessories after the fact. They might be sanctioned under RS 14:25 if it can be substantiated that their silence/concealment implies their intent that the girl who mingled the substance "escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment." (emphasis added).

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

Iñaki Viggers

3,6841315

• 
  
  
  

  
  12
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I don't think "accessoryies after the fact" is relevant here. For example, this article notes a case where the judge decided that "mere non-disclosure of knowledge of a felony committed by another is not a crime; the conduct of the accused must be such as to make him an accessory after the fact." So unless others actively hid what the student did (e.g. hid the pack of pills she used), I don't think they are guilty. Would you mind editing that part?
  – sleske
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @sleske Thanks for the article. It actually strengthens my point. See the citation of Blackstone in the next paragraph: "if he assented [to the crime] this makes him either principal or accessory". Before others mutilated the OP's original post, it read that the students "even clapped and laughed as the perp ran back to her seat" (see the history of edits). Therefore, the students clearly assented to that crime and even allowed the OP to drink the substance that was mingled in her thermo. Others should have respected the level of relevant detail that OP included in her question.
  – Iñaki Viggers
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Just to play a little devil's advocate/speculate, is it possible to say that every student is now an accessory. I've been in class and not paying attention and something like this could have easily been missed. I think the OP will have a hard time trying to stick a whole classroom with an accessory verdict. Unless there is a camera and they can see who is laughing? Otherwise, those students could simply say they didn't see (aside for the one that warned her after the fact.) Which if that's the case, would then be punishing the only person who intended to mitigate the situation.
  – knocked loose
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  "They might be sanctioned under RS 14:25 if it can be substantiated that their silence/concealment implies their intent that the girl who mingled the substance "escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment." " RS14:25 requires that they help the perpetrator, that they know that they are helping a perpetrator, and they have intent to help a perpetrator. You for some reason quoted only the part of about intent.
  – Acccumulation
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Acccumulation Language in RS 14:25 reads conceal, which is defined as "[to] withhold from the knowledge of others; [...] to withhold from utterance or declaration" (Black's Law Dictionary). That is what the complicit/clapping students did, and then they watched the OP drink the altered substance. That amounts to knowingly helping the perpetrator when they should have denounced him and warn the OP not to drink from her thermo.
  – Iñaki Viggers
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

up vote
51
down vote

I told the school resource officer that I wanted to file charges
against her and he said all she'll get is a "citation" because it
isn't actually "criminal".

The school resource officer should be fired for jumping to inept conclusions instead of bothering to conduct at least a minimum of legal research on this. It would have taken him less than 20 minutes to realize that RS 14:38.1 sanctions with imprisonment the intentional mingling of harmful substances with someone's drink.

What about the other 21 students who saw what happened and did/said
nothing; just watched me ingest the medicine? Are they not
accessories?

Yes, they are what Louisiana law would call accessories after the fact. They might be sanctioned under RS 14:25 if it can be substantiated that their silence/concealment implies their intent that the girl who mingled the substance "escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment." (emphasis added).

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

Iñaki Viggers

3,6841315

• 
  
  
  

  
  12
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I don't think "accessoryies after the fact" is relevant here. For example, this article notes a case where the judge decided that "mere non-disclosure of knowledge of a felony committed by another is not a crime; the conduct of the accused must be such as to make him an accessory after the fact." So unless others actively hid what the student did (e.g. hid the pack of pills she used), I don't think they are guilty. Would you mind editing that part?
  – sleske
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @sleske Thanks for the article. It actually strengthens my point. See the citation of Blackstone in the next paragraph: "if he assented [to the crime] this makes him either principal or accessory". Before others mutilated the OP's original post, it read that the students "even clapped and laughed as the perp ran back to her seat" (see the history of edits). Therefore, the students clearly assented to that crime and even allowed the OP to drink the substance that was mingled in her thermo. Others should have respected the level of relevant detail that OP included in her question.
  – Iñaki Viggers
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Just to play a little devil's advocate/speculate, is it possible to say that every student is now an accessory. I've been in class and not paying attention and something like this could have easily been missed. I think the OP will have a hard time trying to stick a whole classroom with an accessory verdict. Unless there is a camera and they can see who is laughing? Otherwise, those students could simply say they didn't see (aside for the one that warned her after the fact.) Which if that's the case, would then be punishing the only person who intended to mitigate the situation.
  – knocked loose
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  "They might be sanctioned under RS 14:25 if it can be substantiated that their silence/concealment implies their intent that the girl who mingled the substance "escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment." " RS14:25 requires that they help the perpetrator, that they know that they are helping a perpetrator, and they have intent to help a perpetrator. You for some reason quoted only the part of about intent.
  – Acccumulation
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Acccumulation Language in RS 14:25 reads conceal, which is defined as "[to] withhold from the knowledge of others; [...] to withhold from utterance or declaration" (Black's Law Dictionary). That is what the complicit/clapping students did, and then they watched the OP drink the altered substance. That amounts to knowingly helping the perpetrator when they should have denounced him and warn the OP not to drink from her thermo.
  – Iñaki Viggers
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

up vote
51
down vote

up vote
51
down vote

I told the school resource officer that I wanted to file charges
against her and he said all she'll get is a "citation" because it
isn't actually "criminal".

The school resource officer should be fired for jumping to inept conclusions instead of bothering to conduct at least a minimum of legal research on this. It would have taken him less than 20 minutes to realize that RS 14:38.1 sanctions with imprisonment the intentional mingling of harmful substances with someone's drink.

What about the other 21 students who saw what happened and did/said
nothing; just watched me ingest the medicine? Are they not
accessories?

Yes, they are what Louisiana law would call accessories after the fact. They might be sanctioned under RS 14:25 if it can be substantiated that their silence/concealment implies their intent that the girl who mingled the substance "escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment." (emphasis added).

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

Iñaki Viggers

3,6841315

I told the school resource officer that I wanted to file charges
against her and he said all she'll get is a "citation" because it
isn't actually "criminal".

The school resource officer should be fired for jumping to inept conclusions instead of bothering to conduct at least a minimum of legal research on this. It would have taken him less than 20 minutes to realize that RS 14:38.1 sanctions with imprisonment the intentional mingling of harmful substances with someone's drink.

What about the other 21 students who saw what happened and did/said
nothing; just watched me ingest the medicine? Are they not
accessories?

Yes, they are what Louisiana law would call accessories after the fact. They might be sanctioned under RS 14:25 if it can be substantiated that their silence/concealment implies their intent that the girl who mingled the substance "escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment." (emphasis added).

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

Iñaki Viggers

3,6841315

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited 2 days ago

edited 2 days ago

edited 2 days ago

answered 2 days ago

Iñaki Viggers

3,6841315

answered 2 days ago

Iñaki Viggers

3,6841315

answered 2 days ago

Iñaki Viggers

3,6841315

3,6841315

• 
  
  
  

  
  12
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I don't think "accessoryies after the fact" is relevant here. For example, this article notes a case where the judge decided that "mere non-disclosure of knowledge of a felony committed by another is not a crime; the conduct of the accused must be such as to make him an accessory after the fact." So unless others actively hid what the student did (e.g. hid the pack of pills she used), I don't think they are guilty. Would you mind editing that part?
  – sleske
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @sleske Thanks for the article. It actually strengthens my point. See the citation of Blackstone in the next paragraph: "if he assented [to the crime] this makes him either principal or accessory". Before others mutilated the OP's original post, it read that the students "even clapped and laughed as the perp ran back to her seat" (see the history of edits). Therefore, the students clearly assented to that crime and even allowed the OP to drink the substance that was mingled in her thermo. Others should have respected the level of relevant detail that OP included in her question.
  – Iñaki Viggers
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Just to play a little devil's advocate/speculate, is it possible to say that every student is now an accessory. I've been in class and not paying attention and something like this could have easily been missed. I think the OP will have a hard time trying to stick a whole classroom with an accessory verdict. Unless there is a camera and they can see who is laughing? Otherwise, those students could simply say they didn't see (aside for the one that warned her after the fact.) Which if that's the case, would then be punishing the only person who intended to mitigate the situation.
  – knocked loose
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  "They might be sanctioned under RS 14:25 if it can be substantiated that their silence/concealment implies their intent that the girl who mingled the substance "escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment." " RS14:25 requires that they help the perpetrator, that they know that they are helping a perpetrator, and they have intent to help a perpetrator. You for some reason quoted only the part of about intent.
  – Acccumulation
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Acccumulation Language in RS 14:25 reads conceal, which is defined as "[to] withhold from the knowledge of others; [...] to withhold from utterance or declaration" (Black's Law Dictionary). That is what the complicit/clapping students did, and then they watched the OP drink the altered substance. That amounts to knowingly helping the perpetrator when they should have denounced him and warn the OP not to drink from her thermo.
  – Iñaki Viggers
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

• 
  
  
  

  
  12
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I don't think "accessoryies after the fact" is relevant here. For example, this article notes a case where the judge decided that "mere non-disclosure of knowledge of a felony committed by another is not a crime; the conduct of the accused must be such as to make him an accessory after the fact." So unless others actively hid what the student did (e.g. hid the pack of pills she used), I don't think they are guilty. Would you mind editing that part?
  – sleske
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @sleske Thanks for the article. It actually strengthens my point. See the citation of Blackstone in the next paragraph: "if he assented [to the crime] this makes him either principal or accessory". Before others mutilated the OP's original post, it read that the students "even clapped and laughed as the perp ran back to her seat" (see the history of edits). Therefore, the students clearly assented to that crime and even allowed the OP to drink the substance that was mingled in her thermo. Others should have respected the level of relevant detail that OP included in her question.
  – Iñaki Viggers
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Just to play a little devil's advocate/speculate, is it possible to say that every student is now an accessory. I've been in class and not paying attention and something like this could have easily been missed. I think the OP will have a hard time trying to stick a whole classroom with an accessory verdict. Unless there is a camera and they can see who is laughing? Otherwise, those students could simply say they didn't see (aside for the one that warned her after the fact.) Which if that's the case, would then be punishing the only person who intended to mitigate the situation.
  – knocked loose
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  "They might be sanctioned under RS 14:25 if it can be substantiated that their silence/concealment implies their intent that the girl who mingled the substance "escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment." " RS14:25 requires that they help the perpetrator, that they know that they are helping a perpetrator, and they have intent to help a perpetrator. You for some reason quoted only the part of about intent.
  – Acccumulation
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Acccumulation Language in RS 14:25 reads conceal, which is defined as "[to] withhold from the knowledge of others; [...] to withhold from utterance or declaration" (Black's Law Dictionary). That is what the complicit/clapping students did, and then they watched the OP drink the altered substance. That amounts to knowingly helping the perpetrator when they should have denounced him and warn the OP not to drink from her thermo.
  – Iñaki Viggers
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

12

12

I don't think "accessoryies after the fact" is relevant here. For example, this article notes a case where the judge decided that "mere non-disclosure of knowledge of a felony committed by another is not a crime; the conduct of the accused must be such as to make him an accessory after the fact." So unless others actively hid what the student did (e.g. hid the pack of pills she used), I don't think they are guilty. Would you mind editing that part?
– sleske
yesterday

I don't think "accessoryies after the fact" is relevant here. For example, this article notes a case where the judge decided that "mere non-disclosure of knowledge of a felony committed by another is not a crime; the conduct of the accused must be such as to make him an accessory after the fact." So unless others actively hid what the student did (e.g. hid the pack of pills she used), I don't think they are guilty. Would you mind editing that part?
– sleske
yesterday

5

5

@sleske Thanks for the article. It actually strengthens my point. See the citation of Blackstone in the next paragraph: "if he assented [to the crime] this makes him either principal or accessory". Before others mutilated the OP's original post, it read that the students "even clapped and laughed as the perp ran back to her seat" (see the history of edits). Therefore, the students clearly assented to that crime and even allowed the OP to drink the substance that was mingled in her thermo. Others should have respected the level of relevant detail that OP included in her question.
– Iñaki Viggers
yesterday

@sleske Thanks for the article. It actually strengthens my point. See the citation of Blackstone in the next paragraph: "if he assented [to the crime] this makes him either principal or accessory". Before others mutilated the OP's original post, it read that the students "even clapped and laughed as the perp ran back to her seat" (see the history of edits). Therefore, the students clearly assented to that crime and even allowed the OP to drink the substance that was mingled in her thermo. Others should have respected the level of relevant detail that OP included in her question.
– Iñaki Viggers
yesterday

2

2

Just to play a little devil's advocate/speculate, is it possible to say that every student is now an accessory. I've been in class and not paying attention and something like this could have easily been missed. I think the OP will have a hard time trying to stick a whole classroom with an accessory verdict. Unless there is a camera and they can see who is laughing? Otherwise, those students could simply say they didn't see (aside for the one that warned her after the fact.) Which if that's the case, would then be punishing the only person who intended to mitigate the situation.
– knocked loose
yesterday

Just to play a little devil's advocate/speculate, is it possible to say that every student is now an accessory. I've been in class and not paying attention and something like this could have easily been missed. I think the OP will have a hard time trying to stick a whole classroom with an accessory verdict. Unless there is a camera and they can see who is laughing? Otherwise, those students could simply say they didn't see (aside for the one that warned her after the fact.) Which if that's the case, would then be punishing the only person who intended to mitigate the situation.
– knocked loose
yesterday

3

3

"They might be sanctioned under RS 14:25 if it can be substantiated that their silence/concealment implies their intent that the girl who mingled the substance "escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment." " RS14:25 requires that they help the perpetrator, that they know that they are helping a perpetrator, and they have intent to help a perpetrator. You for some reason quoted only the part of about intent.
– Acccumulation
yesterday

"They might be sanctioned under RS 14:25 if it can be substantiated that their silence/concealment implies their intent that the girl who mingled the substance "escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment." " RS14:25 requires that they help the perpetrator, that they know that they are helping a perpetrator, and they have intent to help a perpetrator. You for some reason quoted only the part of about intent.
– Acccumulation
yesterday

3

3

@Acccumulation Language in RS 14:25 reads conceal, which is defined as "[to] withhold from the knowledge of others; [...] to withhold from utterance or declaration" (Black's Law Dictionary). That is what the complicit/clapping students did, and then they watched the OP drink the altered substance. That amounts to knowingly helping the perpetrator when they should have denounced him and warn the OP not to drink from her thermo.
– Iñaki Viggers
yesterday

@Acccumulation Language in RS 14:25 reads conceal, which is defined as "[to] withhold from the knowledge of others; [...] to withhold from utterance or declaration" (Black's Law Dictionary). That is what the complicit/clapping students did, and then they watched the OP drink the altered substance. That amounts to knowingly helping the perpetrator when they should have denounced him and warn the OP not to drink from her thermo.
– Iñaki Viggers
yesterday

 | 
show 3 more comments

up vote
14
down vote

(Edit: This paragraph is incorrect, per comments below. Left in place so that context for comments is clear.) You are talking to the wrong officer.The school resources officer does not necessarily have any legal background. And more generally, like every other HR person, their primary responsibility is to the organisation and not to the employees. If they can dissuade you from publicising a negative incident more widely, it's reasonable to expect that they will. The person you should be talking to is a police officer.

(Still valid...)
Whether you choose to press charges is up to you, and not to the school. If you do though, make sure you have copies of all evidence relating to the school investigation and the student's suspension, in case it happens to "disappear" and everyone loses their memory.

share|improve this answer

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

Graham

73134

• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I'm not sure how it works in Louisiana, but in most states that I'm familiar with, a school resource officer is a police officer.
  – bdb484
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  This FAQ about "school resource officers" might be a good reference. It does sound like federal regulations require them to be police officers.
  – Nat
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  SROs are one of the reactions to the epidemic of school shootings we've been experiencing. The name makes them sound less intimidating than "armed guard", which is actually what they are.
  – Barmar
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Barmar citation needed. SROs have been around since the 1950s and they do a lot more than act as an "armed guard".
  – TemporalWolf
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Please don't leave material in your answer that you know to be incorrect. The fact that comments refer to it is irrelevant: comments are supposed to be temporary. Please delete the incorrect material and flag the comments that refer to it as "no longer needed".
  – David Richerby
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 8 more comments

up vote
14
down vote

(Edit: This paragraph is incorrect, per comments below. Left in place so that context for comments is clear.) You are talking to the wrong officer.The school resources officer does not necessarily have any legal background. And more generally, like every other HR person, their primary responsibility is to the organisation and not to the employees. If they can dissuade you from publicising a negative incident more widely, it's reasonable to expect that they will. The person you should be talking to is a police officer.

(Still valid...)
Whether you choose to press charges is up to you, and not to the school. If you do though, make sure you have copies of all evidence relating to the school investigation and the student's suspension, in case it happens to "disappear" and everyone loses their memory.

share|improve this answer

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

Graham

73134

• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I'm not sure how it works in Louisiana, but in most states that I'm familiar with, a school resource officer is a police officer.
  – bdb484
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  This FAQ about "school resource officers" might be a good reference. It does sound like federal regulations require them to be police officers.
  – Nat
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  SROs are one of the reactions to the epidemic of school shootings we've been experiencing. The name makes them sound less intimidating than "armed guard", which is actually what they are.
  – Barmar
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Barmar citation needed. SROs have been around since the 1950s and they do a lot more than act as an "armed guard".
  – TemporalWolf
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Please don't leave material in your answer that you know to be incorrect. The fact that comments refer to it is irrelevant: comments are supposed to be temporary. Please delete the incorrect material and flag the comments that refer to it as "no longer needed".
  – David Richerby
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 8 more comments

up vote
14
down vote

up vote
14
down vote

(Edit: This paragraph is incorrect, per comments below. Left in place so that context for comments is clear.) You are talking to the wrong officer.The school resources officer does not necessarily have any legal background. And more generally, like every other HR person, their primary responsibility is to the organisation and not to the employees. If they can dissuade you from publicising a negative incident more widely, it's reasonable to expect that they will. The person you should be talking to is a police officer.

(Still valid...)
Whether you choose to press charges is up to you, and not to the school. If you do though, make sure you have copies of all evidence relating to the school investigation and the student's suspension, in case it happens to "disappear" and everyone loses their memory.

share|improve this answer

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

Graham

73134

(Edit: This paragraph is incorrect, per comments below. Left in place so that context for comments is clear.) You are talking to the wrong officer.The school resources officer does not necessarily have any legal background. And more generally, like every other HR person, their primary responsibility is to the organisation and not to the employees. If they can dissuade you from publicising a negative incident more widely, it's reasonable to expect that they will. The person you should be talking to is a police officer.

(Still valid...)
Whether you choose to press charges is up to you, and not to the school. If you do though, make sure you have copies of all evidence relating to the school investigation and the student's suspension, in case it happens to "disappear" and everyone loses their memory.

share|improve this answer

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

Graham

73134

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited yesterday

edited yesterday

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

Graham

73134

answered yesterday

Graham

73134

answered yesterday

Graham

73134

73134

• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I'm not sure how it works in Louisiana, but in most states that I'm familiar with, a school resource officer is a police officer.
  – bdb484
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  This FAQ about "school resource officers" might be a good reference. It does sound like federal regulations require them to be police officers.
  – Nat
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  SROs are one of the reactions to the epidemic of school shootings we've been experiencing. The name makes them sound less intimidating than "armed guard", which is actually what they are.
  – Barmar
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Barmar citation needed. SROs have been around since the 1950s and they do a lot more than act as an "armed guard".
  – TemporalWolf
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Please don't leave material in your answer that you know to be incorrect. The fact that comments refer to it is irrelevant: comments are supposed to be temporary. Please delete the incorrect material and flag the comments that refer to it as "no longer needed".
  – David Richerby
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 8 more comments

• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I'm not sure how it works in Louisiana, but in most states that I'm familiar with, a school resource officer is a police officer.
  – bdb484
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  This FAQ about "school resource officers" might be a good reference. It does sound like federal regulations require them to be police officers.
  – Nat
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  SROs are one of the reactions to the epidemic of school shootings we've been experiencing. The name makes them sound less intimidating than "armed guard", which is actually what they are.
  – Barmar
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Barmar citation needed. SROs have been around since the 1950s and they do a lot more than act as an "armed guard".
  – TemporalWolf
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Please don't leave material in your answer that you know to be incorrect. The fact that comments refer to it is irrelevant: comments are supposed to be temporary. Please delete the incorrect material and flag the comments that refer to it as "no longer needed".
  – David Richerby
  9 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

5

5

I'm not sure how it works in Louisiana, but in most states that I'm familiar with, a school resource officer is a police officer.
– bdb484
yesterday

I'm not sure how it works in Louisiana, but in most states that I'm familiar with, a school resource officer is a police officer.
– bdb484
yesterday

1

1

This FAQ about "school resource officers" might be a good reference. It does sound like federal regulations require them to be police officers.
– Nat
yesterday

This FAQ about "school resource officers" might be a good reference. It does sound like federal regulations require them to be police officers.
– Nat
yesterday

1

1

SROs are one of the reactions to the epidemic of school shootings we've been experiencing. The name makes them sound less intimidating than "armed guard", which is actually what they are.
– Barmar
yesterday

SROs are one of the reactions to the epidemic of school shootings we've been experiencing. The name makes them sound less intimidating than "armed guard", which is actually what they are.
– Barmar
yesterday

1

1

@Barmar citation needed. SROs have been around since the 1950s and they do a lot more than act as an "armed guard".
– TemporalWolf
yesterday

@Barmar citation needed. SROs have been around since the 1950s and they do a lot more than act as an "armed guard".
– TemporalWolf
yesterday

1

1

Please don't leave material in your answer that you know to be incorrect. The fact that comments refer to it is irrelevant: comments are supposed to be temporary. Please delete the incorrect material and flag the comments that refer to it as "no longer needed".
– David Richerby
9 hours ago

Please don't leave material in your answer that you know to be incorrect. The fact that comments refer to it is irrelevant: comments are supposed to be temporary. Please delete the incorrect material and flag the comments that refer to it as "no longer needed".
– David Richerby
9 hours ago

 | 
show 8 more comments

up vote
11
down vote

You need the school authorities, police department and prosecutor to take you seriously. Tell the principal and the school board you are looking for a lawyer, and then find one; look in the phone book or online for a personal injury lawyer who gives free initial consultations.

Finding a lawyer will cause the board and school district to take you seriously and properly charge the student and take some sort of disciplinary action against the rest of the class. Since all the kids are talking about it, the school also needs to make a general announcement to the school and the parents that these types of actions are illegal and will be punished.

The lawyer can also talk to to the local city/county prosecutor to see what is appropriate in terms of the relevant local and state criminal codes for youth offenders. You would consult with the lawyer and the prosecutor about encouraging the student to be charged with a crime, i.e. battery of a teacher, as pointed out by user6726 in his answer.

You could also file suit against the school for damages, but you may not need (or want) to actually if the lawyer can make enough noise so that they will take the situation seriously. Depending on what the school board and district does and doesn't do, you could take further action in terms of suing for damages; that would be under the advice of your lawyer.

share|improve this answer

edited 8 hours ago

answered 2 days ago

BlueDogRanch

8,60721635

• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  While doing this may or may not be a good idea, this does not answer the question. The question was not "What should I do?" (which would be off-topic), but "What are the legal ramifications?". Also, I don't think it is a good idea to tell OP what they "should" do - we can outline options, but only OP can decide what to do.
  – sleske
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Also, could you clarify on what basis OP could sue the school for damages? I don't see any wrongdoing on their part.
  – sleske
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @MartinBonner That implies that there's something the school could have done to prevent this. What could that be? Redesign classrooms so the teacher can write on the blackboard without turning away from the students? Install guards or monitors in every classroom?
  – Barmar
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Wumms That way leads to the "zero tolerance" policies that have gotten diabetic students suspended for having insulin in their backpacks.
  – Barmar
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Barmar What about forbidding drinking and eating? IIRC it both was forbidden in my school's chemistry lab (in Germany) since we were experimenting with chemicals on the desks.
  – Wumms
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

up vote
11
down vote

You need the school authorities, police department and prosecutor to take you seriously. Tell the principal and the school board you are looking for a lawyer, and then find one; look in the phone book or online for a personal injury lawyer who gives free initial consultations.

Finding a lawyer will cause the board and school district to take you seriously and properly charge the student and take some sort of disciplinary action against the rest of the class. Since all the kids are talking about it, the school also needs to make a general announcement to the school and the parents that these types of actions are illegal and will be punished.

The lawyer can also talk to to the local city/county prosecutor to see what is appropriate in terms of the relevant local and state criminal codes for youth offenders. You would consult with the lawyer and the prosecutor about encouraging the student to be charged with a crime, i.e. battery of a teacher, as pointed out by user6726 in his answer.

You could also file suit against the school for damages, but you may not need (or want) to actually if the lawyer can make enough noise so that they will take the situation seriously. Depending on what the school board and district does and doesn't do, you could take further action in terms of suing for damages; that would be under the advice of your lawyer.

share|improve this answer

edited 8 hours ago

answered 2 days ago

BlueDogRanch

8,60721635

• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  While doing this may or may not be a good idea, this does not answer the question. The question was not "What should I do?" (which would be off-topic), but "What are the legal ramifications?". Also, I don't think it is a good idea to tell OP what they "should" do - we can outline options, but only OP can decide what to do.
  – sleske
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Also, could you clarify on what basis OP could sue the school for damages? I don't see any wrongdoing on their part.
  – sleske
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @MartinBonner That implies that there's something the school could have done to prevent this. What could that be? Redesign classrooms so the teacher can write on the blackboard without turning away from the students? Install guards or monitors in every classroom?
  – Barmar
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Wumms That way leads to the "zero tolerance" policies that have gotten diabetic students suspended for having insulin in their backpacks.
  – Barmar
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Barmar What about forbidding drinking and eating? IIRC it both was forbidden in my school's chemistry lab (in Germany) since we were experimenting with chemicals on the desks.
  – Wumms
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

up vote
11
down vote

up vote
11
down vote

You need the school authorities, police department and prosecutor to take you seriously. Tell the principal and the school board you are looking for a lawyer, and then find one; look in the phone book or online for a personal injury lawyer who gives free initial consultations.

Finding a lawyer will cause the board and school district to take you seriously and properly charge the student and take some sort of disciplinary action against the rest of the class. Since all the kids are talking about it, the school also needs to make a general announcement to the school and the parents that these types of actions are illegal and will be punished.

The lawyer can also talk to to the local city/county prosecutor to see what is appropriate in terms of the relevant local and state criminal codes for youth offenders. You would consult with the lawyer and the prosecutor about encouraging the student to be charged with a crime, i.e. battery of a teacher, as pointed out by user6726 in his answer.

You could also file suit against the school for damages, but you may not need (or want) to actually if the lawyer can make enough noise so that they will take the situation seriously. Depending on what the school board and district does and doesn't do, you could take further action in terms of suing for damages; that would be under the advice of your lawyer.

share|improve this answer

edited 8 hours ago

answered 2 days ago

BlueDogRanch

8,60721635

You need the school authorities, police department and prosecutor to take you seriously. Tell the principal and the school board you are looking for a lawyer, and then find one; look in the phone book or online for a personal injury lawyer who gives free initial consultations.

Finding a lawyer will cause the board and school district to take you seriously and properly charge the student and take some sort of disciplinary action against the rest of the class. Since all the kids are talking about it, the school also needs to make a general announcement to the school and the parents that these types of actions are illegal and will be punished.

The lawyer can also talk to to the local city/county prosecutor to see what is appropriate in terms of the relevant local and state criminal codes for youth offenders. You would consult with the lawyer and the prosecutor about encouraging the student to be charged with a crime, i.e. battery of a teacher, as pointed out by user6726 in his answer.

You could also file suit against the school for damages, but you may not need (or want) to actually if the lawyer can make enough noise so that they will take the situation seriously. Depending on what the school board and district does and doesn't do, you could take further action in terms of suing for damages; that would be under the advice of your lawyer.

share|improve this answer

edited 8 hours ago

answered 2 days ago

BlueDogRanch

8,60721635

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited 8 hours ago

edited 8 hours ago

edited 8 hours ago

answered 2 days ago

BlueDogRanch

8,60721635

answered 2 days ago

BlueDogRanch

8,60721635

answered 2 days ago

BlueDogRanch

8,60721635

8,60721635

• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  While doing this may or may not be a good idea, this does not answer the question. The question was not "What should I do?" (which would be off-topic), but "What are the legal ramifications?". Also, I don't think it is a good idea to tell OP what they "should" do - we can outline options, but only OP can decide what to do.
  – sleske
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Also, could you clarify on what basis OP could sue the school for damages? I don't see any wrongdoing on their part.
  – sleske
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @MartinBonner That implies that there's something the school could have done to prevent this. What could that be? Redesign classrooms so the teacher can write on the blackboard without turning away from the students? Install guards or monitors in every classroom?
  – Barmar
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Wumms That way leads to the "zero tolerance" policies that have gotten diabetic students suspended for having insulin in their backpacks.
  – Barmar
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Barmar What about forbidding drinking and eating? IIRC it both was forbidden in my school's chemistry lab (in Germany) since we were experimenting with chemicals on the desks.
  – Wumms
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  While doing this may or may not be a good idea, this does not answer the question. The question was not "What should I do?" (which would be off-topic), but "What are the legal ramifications?". Also, I don't think it is a good idea to tell OP what they "should" do - we can outline options, but only OP can decide what to do.
  – sleske
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Also, could you clarify on what basis OP could sue the school for damages? I don't see any wrongdoing on their part.
  – sleske
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @MartinBonner That implies that there's something the school could have done to prevent this. What could that be? Redesign classrooms so the teacher can write on the blackboard without turning away from the students? Install guards or monitors in every classroom?
  – Barmar
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Wumms That way leads to the "zero tolerance" policies that have gotten diabetic students suspended for having insulin in their backpacks.
  – Barmar
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  @Barmar What about forbidding drinking and eating? IIRC it both was forbidden in my school's chemistry lab (in Germany) since we were experimenting with chemicals on the desks.
  – Wumms
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

4

4

While doing this may or may not be a good idea, this does not answer the question. The question was not "What should I do?" (which would be off-topic), but "What are the legal ramifications?". Also, I don't think it is a good idea to tell OP what they "should" do - we can outline options, but only OP can decide what to do.
– sleske
yesterday

While doing this may or may not be a good idea, this does not answer the question. The question was not "What should I do?" (which would be off-topic), but "What are the legal ramifications?". Also, I don't think it is a good idea to tell OP what they "should" do - we can outline options, but only OP can decide what to do.
– sleske
yesterday

3

3

Also, could you clarify on what basis OP could sue the school for damages? I don't see any wrongdoing on their part.
– sleske
yesterday

Also, could you clarify on what basis OP could sue the school for damages? I don't see any wrongdoing on their part.
– sleske
yesterday

2

2

@MartinBonner That implies that there's something the school could have done to prevent this. What could that be? Redesign classrooms so the teacher can write on the blackboard without turning away from the students? Install guards or monitors in every classroom?
– Barmar
yesterday

@MartinBonner That implies that there's something the school could have done to prevent this. What could that be? Redesign classrooms so the teacher can write on the blackboard without turning away from the students? Install guards or monitors in every classroom?
– Barmar
yesterday

1

1

@Wumms That way leads to the "zero tolerance" policies that have gotten diabetic students suspended for having insulin in their backpacks.
– Barmar
yesterday

@Wumms That way leads to the "zero tolerance" policies that have gotten diabetic students suspended for having insulin in their backpacks.
– Barmar
yesterday

2

2

@Barmar What about forbidding drinking and eating? IIRC it both was forbidden in my school's chemistry lab (in Germany) since we were experimenting with chemicals on the desks.
– Wumms
yesterday

@Barmar What about forbidding drinking and eating? IIRC it both was forbidden in my school's chemistry lab (in Germany) since we were experimenting with chemicals on the desks.
– Wumms
yesterday

 | 
show 3 more comments

up vote
3
down vote

I think the other answers are off-base to the extent that they assume that what the student put in your drink is "noxious," "harmful," or "poison." As you describe it, they put herbs in your coffee, and I don't think that in most cases, one could accurately categorize a commercial herbal supplement as poison. Even if you had special circumstances that made you allergic, I suspect that would only mean that you were particularly vulnerable -- not that the pill was poisonous.

I think a better fit would be RS 14:59, the criminal mischief statute:

Criminal mischief is the intentional performance of any of the following acts:

(1) Tampering with any property of another, without the consent of the owner, with the intent to interfere with the free enjoyment of any rights of anyone thereto, or with the intent to deprive anyone entitled thereto of the full use of the property.

The status of the other classmates is not clear. Louisiana puts participants in crimes in two categories: principals and "accessories after the fact."

Principals are the ones who do the act, help do the act, counsel others to do the act, or procure someone to do the act. If there were students serving as lookouts, egging on the students who put the chemical into your drink, or otherwise pushing the events toward the commission of the offense, those people would be considered principals and would be criminally liable.

Accessories after the fact are those who "harbor, conceal, or aid" an offender to prevent them from being punished. Simply failing to report the crime is typically not enough to trigger accessory liability, nor is refusing to snitch when asked. Affirmatively lying may be enough.

The circumstances here sound serious enough, though, that you should probably consult a real attorney -- maybe through your union, or through an employee-benefits plan -- to go over the specifics and answer the outstanding questions that will lead to the best outcome for you.

share|improve this answer

edited yesterday

answered 2 days ago

bdb484

9,39011332

• 
  
  
  

  
  11
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think the resulting symptoms suffice to put this in the "noxious" category.
  – user6726
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I don't see it. Viagra (and its herbal equivalents) work by reducing blood pressure. Elevated pulse and blood pressure, meanwhile, are pretty classic symptoms of freaking out because you think you've been poisoned. The ER results seem to bear this out.
  – bdb484
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  23
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  "Synthetic cannabis" is not cannabis. "Herbal Viagra" is not Viagra. Very frequently, the drugs do nothing at all like what they are supposed to replicate, and often carry harmful side effects (including well-reported fatalities). This answer makes highly dangerous assumptions from a position of ignorance, just as the school administrator did (i.e. "it's not illegal" and "at most a citation", here "it's not really dangerous").
  – Nij
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  15
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Whether the substance was "noxious" or not, it certainly seems like the student believed it would cause some sort of ill or unwanted effect, and intended to cause such an effect. Could that be the basis for a charge of attempted battery?
  – Nate Eldredge
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  10
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  From the question: "The school nurse checked my vitals and found an irregular, rapid heartbeat and high blood pressure (both unusual for me). I was sent to an emergency care clinic and had testing done (x-rays, EKG, drug screening, etc.). There were no residual problems." - not only did a qualified professional make an examination, but they found noteworthy symptoms. Further, the tests did not come back as "nothing", they came back as "no residual problems". Whether the chemical might have been dangerous is irrelevant; it caused actual harm and therefore clearly was dangerous.
  – Nij
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 14 more comments

up vote
3
down vote

I think the other answers are off-base to the extent that they assume that what the student put in your drink is "noxious," "harmful," or "poison." As you describe it, they put herbs in your coffee, and I don't think that in most cases, one could accurately categorize a commercial herbal supplement as poison. Even if you had special circumstances that made you allergic, I suspect that would only mean that you were particularly vulnerable -- not that the pill was poisonous.

I think a better fit would be RS 14:59, the criminal mischief statute:

Criminal mischief is the intentional performance of any of the following acts:

(1) Tampering with any property of another, without the consent of the owner, with the intent to interfere with the free enjoyment of any rights of anyone thereto, or with the intent to deprive anyone entitled thereto of the full use of the property.

The status of the other classmates is not clear. Louisiana puts participants in crimes in two categories: principals and "accessories after the fact."

Principals are the ones who do the act, help do the act, counsel others to do the act, or procure someone to do the act. If there were students serving as lookouts, egging on the students who put the chemical into your drink, or otherwise pushing the events toward the commission of the offense, those people would be considered principals and would be criminally liable.

Accessories after the fact are those who "harbor, conceal, or aid" an offender to prevent them from being punished. Simply failing to report the crime is typically not enough to trigger accessory liability, nor is refusing to snitch when asked. Affirmatively lying may be enough.

The circumstances here sound serious enough, though, that you should probably consult a real attorney -- maybe through your union, or through an employee-benefits plan -- to go over the specifics and answer the outstanding questions that will lead to the best outcome for you.

share|improve this answer

edited yesterday

answered 2 days ago

bdb484

9,39011332

• 
  
  
  

  
  11
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think the resulting symptoms suffice to put this in the "noxious" category.
  – user6726
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I don't see it. Viagra (and its herbal equivalents) work by reducing blood pressure. Elevated pulse and blood pressure, meanwhile, are pretty classic symptoms of freaking out because you think you've been poisoned. The ER results seem to bear this out.
  – bdb484
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  23
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  "Synthetic cannabis" is not cannabis. "Herbal Viagra" is not Viagra. Very frequently, the drugs do nothing at all like what they are supposed to replicate, and often carry harmful side effects (including well-reported fatalities). This answer makes highly dangerous assumptions from a position of ignorance, just as the school administrator did (i.e. "it's not illegal" and "at most a citation", here "it's not really dangerous").
  – Nij
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  15
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Whether the substance was "noxious" or not, it certainly seems like the student believed it would cause some sort of ill or unwanted effect, and intended to cause such an effect. Could that be the basis for a charge of attempted battery?
  – Nate Eldredge
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  10
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  From the question: "The school nurse checked my vitals and found an irregular, rapid heartbeat and high blood pressure (both unusual for me). I was sent to an emergency care clinic and had testing done (x-rays, EKG, drug screening, etc.). There were no residual problems." - not only did a qualified professional make an examination, but they found noteworthy symptoms. Further, the tests did not come back as "nothing", they came back as "no residual problems". Whether the chemical might have been dangerous is irrelevant; it caused actual harm and therefore clearly was dangerous.
  – Nij
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 14 more comments

up vote
3
down vote

up vote
3
down vote

I think the other answers are off-base to the extent that they assume that what the student put in your drink is "noxious," "harmful," or "poison." As you describe it, they put herbs in your coffee, and I don't think that in most cases, one could accurately categorize a commercial herbal supplement as poison. Even if you had special circumstances that made you allergic, I suspect that would only mean that you were particularly vulnerable -- not that the pill was poisonous.

I think a better fit would be RS 14:59, the criminal mischief statute:

Criminal mischief is the intentional performance of any of the following acts:

(1) Tampering with any property of another, without the consent of the owner, with the intent to interfere with the free enjoyment of any rights of anyone thereto, or with the intent to deprive anyone entitled thereto of the full use of the property.

The status of the other classmates is not clear. Louisiana puts participants in crimes in two categories: principals and "accessories after the fact."

Principals are the ones who do the act, help do the act, counsel others to do the act, or procure someone to do the act. If there were students serving as lookouts, egging on the students who put the chemical into your drink, or otherwise pushing the events toward the commission of the offense, those people would be considered principals and would be criminally liable.

Accessories after the fact are those who "harbor, conceal, or aid" an offender to prevent them from being punished. Simply failing to report the crime is typically not enough to trigger accessory liability, nor is refusing to snitch when asked. Affirmatively lying may be enough.

The circumstances here sound serious enough, though, that you should probably consult a real attorney -- maybe through your union, or through an employee-benefits plan -- to go over the specifics and answer the outstanding questions that will lead to the best outcome for you.

share|improve this answer

edited yesterday

answered 2 days ago

bdb484

9,39011332

I think the other answers are off-base to the extent that they assume that what the student put in your drink is "noxious," "harmful," or "poison." As you describe it, they put herbs in your coffee, and I don't think that in most cases, one could accurately categorize a commercial herbal supplement as poison. Even if you had special circumstances that made you allergic, I suspect that would only mean that you were particularly vulnerable -- not that the pill was poisonous.

I think a better fit would be RS 14:59, the criminal mischief statute:

Criminal mischief is the intentional performance of any of the following acts:

(1) Tampering with any property of another, without the consent of the owner, with the intent to interfere with the free enjoyment of any rights of anyone thereto, or with the intent to deprive anyone entitled thereto of the full use of the property.

The status of the other classmates is not clear. Louisiana puts participants in crimes in two categories: principals and "accessories after the fact."

Principals are the ones who do the act, help do the act, counsel others to do the act, or procure someone to do the act. If there were students serving as lookouts, egging on the students who put the chemical into your drink, or otherwise pushing the events toward the commission of the offense, those people would be considered principals and would be criminally liable.

Accessories after the fact are those who "harbor, conceal, or aid" an offender to prevent them from being punished. Simply failing to report the crime is typically not enough to trigger accessory liability, nor is refusing to snitch when asked. Affirmatively lying may be enough.

The circumstances here sound serious enough, though, that you should probably consult a real attorney -- maybe through your union, or through an employee-benefits plan -- to go over the specifics and answer the outstanding questions that will lead to the best outcome for you.

share|improve this answer

edited yesterday

answered 2 days ago

bdb484

9,39011332

share|improve this answer

share|improve this answer

edited yesterday

edited yesterday

edited yesterday

answered 2 days ago

bdb484

9,39011332

answered 2 days ago

bdb484

9,39011332

answered 2 days ago

bdb484

9,39011332

9,39011332

• 
  
  
  

  
  11
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think the resulting symptoms suffice to put this in the "noxious" category.
  – user6726
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I don't see it. Viagra (and its herbal equivalents) work by reducing blood pressure. Elevated pulse and blood pressure, meanwhile, are pretty classic symptoms of freaking out because you think you've been poisoned. The ER results seem to bear this out.
  – bdb484
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  23
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  "Synthetic cannabis" is not cannabis. "Herbal Viagra" is not Viagra. Very frequently, the drugs do nothing at all like what they are supposed to replicate, and often carry harmful side effects (including well-reported fatalities). This answer makes highly dangerous assumptions from a position of ignorance, just as the school administrator did (i.e. "it's not illegal" and "at most a citation", here "it's not really dangerous").
  – Nij
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  15
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Whether the substance was "noxious" or not, it certainly seems like the student believed it would cause some sort of ill or unwanted effect, and intended to cause such an effect. Could that be the basis for a charge of attempted battery?
  – Nate Eldredge
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  10
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  From the question: "The school nurse checked my vitals and found an irregular, rapid heartbeat and high blood pressure (both unusual for me). I was sent to an emergency care clinic and had testing done (x-rays, EKG, drug screening, etc.). There were no residual problems." - not only did a qualified professional make an examination, but they found noteworthy symptoms. Further, the tests did not come back as "nothing", they came back as "no residual problems". Whether the chemical might have been dangerous is irrelevant; it caused actual harm and therefore clearly was dangerous.
  – Nij
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 14 more comments

• 
  
  
  

  
  11
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I think the resulting symptoms suffice to put this in the "noxious" category.
  – user6726
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  I don't see it. Viagra (and its herbal equivalents) work by reducing blood pressure. Elevated pulse and blood pressure, meanwhile, are pretty classic symptoms of freaking out because you think you've been poisoned. The ER results seem to bear this out.
  – bdb484
  2 days ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  23
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  "Synthetic cannabis" is not cannabis. "Herbal Viagra" is not Viagra. Very frequently, the drugs do nothing at all like what they are supposed to replicate, and often carry harmful side effects (including well-reported fatalities). This answer makes highly dangerous assumptions from a position of ignorance, just as the school administrator did (i.e. "it's not illegal" and "at most a citation", here "it's not really dangerous").
  – Nij
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  15
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  Whether the substance was "noxious" or not, it certainly seems like the student believed it would cause some sort of ill or unwanted effect, and intended to cause such an effect. Could that be the basis for a charge of attempted battery?
  – Nate Eldredge
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  10
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  From the question: "The school nurse checked my vitals and found an irregular, rapid heartbeat and high blood pressure (both unusual for me). I was sent to an emergency care clinic and had testing done (x-rays, EKG, drug screening, etc.). There were no residual problems." - not only did a qualified professional make an examination, but they found noteworthy symptoms. Further, the tests did not come back as "nothing", they came back as "no residual problems". Whether the chemical might have been dangerous is irrelevant; it caused actual harm and therefore clearly was dangerous.
  – Nij
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

11

11

I think the resulting symptoms suffice to put this in the "noxious" category.
– user6726
2 days ago

I think the resulting symptoms suffice to put this in the "noxious" category.
– user6726
2 days ago

6

6

I don't see it. Viagra (and its herbal equivalents) work by reducing blood pressure. Elevated pulse and blood pressure, meanwhile, are pretty classic symptoms of freaking out because you think you've been poisoned. The ER results seem to bear this out.
– bdb484
2 days ago

I don't see it. Viagra (and its herbal equivalents) work by reducing blood pressure. Elevated pulse and blood pressure, meanwhile, are pretty classic symptoms of freaking out because you think you've been poisoned. The ER results seem to bear this out.
– bdb484
2 days ago

23

23

"Synthetic cannabis" is not cannabis. "Herbal Viagra" is not Viagra. Very frequently, the drugs do nothing at all like what they are supposed to replicate, and often carry harmful side effects (including well-reported fatalities). This answer makes highly dangerous assumptions from a position of ignorance, just as the school administrator did (i.e. "it's not illegal" and "at most a citation", here "it's not really dangerous").
– Nij
yesterday

"Synthetic cannabis" is not cannabis. "Herbal Viagra" is not Viagra. Very frequently, the drugs do nothing at all like what they are supposed to replicate, and often carry harmful side effects (including well-reported fatalities). This answer makes highly dangerous assumptions from a position of ignorance, just as the school administrator did (i.e. "it's not illegal" and "at most a citation", here "it's not really dangerous").
– Nij
yesterday

15

15

Whether the substance was "noxious" or not, it certainly seems like the student believed it would cause some sort of ill or unwanted effect, and intended to cause such an effect. Could that be the basis for a charge of attempted battery?
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday

Whether the substance was "noxious" or not, it certainly seems like the student believed it would cause some sort of ill or unwanted effect, and intended to cause such an effect. Could that be the basis for a charge of attempted battery?
– Nate Eldredge
yesterday

10

10

From the question: "The school nurse checked my vitals and found an irregular, rapid heartbeat and high blood pressure (both unusual for me). I was sent to an emergency care clinic and had testing done (x-rays, EKG, drug screening, etc.). There were no residual problems." - not only did a qualified professional make an examination, but they found noteworthy symptoms. Further, the tests did not come back as "nothing", they came back as "no residual problems". Whether the chemical might have been dangerous is irrelevant; it caused actual harm and therefore clearly was dangerous.
– Nij
yesterday

From the question: "The school nurse checked my vitals and found an irregular, rapid heartbeat and high blood pressure (both unusual for me). I was sent to an emergency care clinic and had testing done (x-rays, EKG, drug screening, etc.). There were no residual problems." - not only did a qualified professional make an examination, but they found noteworthy symptoms. Further, the tests did not come back as "nothing", they came back as "no residual problems". Whether the chemical might have been dangerous is irrelevant; it caused actual harm and therefore clearly was dangerous.
– Nij
yesterday

 | 
show 14 more comments

protected by feetwet♦ yesterday

Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?