Boy Accused Of Attacking 7-Year-Old With Peanut Butter Cracker

Boy Accused Of Attacking 7-Year-Old With Peanut Butter Cracker

POSTED: 7:16 am EST December 16, 2005
UPDATED: 7:41 am EST December 16, 2005

A 7-year-old girl with an extreme allergy to peanut butter was hospitalized for two days after she was allegedly attacked on a St. Louis school bus by a boy with a peanut butter cracker, according to a Local 6 News report.

Arionna Lunceford said a boy was harassing her on the school bus about her allergy to peanut butter and then shoved a peanut butter cracker in her face and then dropped pieces of it on her head.

Lunceford collapsed moments after getting off the bus in her hometown of Ladue and had to be rushed to the hospital to be treated for an asthma attack.

Arionna's mother said the second-grader could have died because her air passages close up when she gets too close to peanuts.

http://www.local6.com/news/5550588/detail.html

Never thought I'd read a story about someone being attacked with food

I'd say he is truly at fault.

typically the teachers issue warnings about these types of allergies so that people don't bring stuff to school that might trigger it.

my son was in kindergarten with a child who was allergic and the parents were all told that peanut butter was off limits in treats or lunches because the little one's allergy was so severe.

Sound like the act was incredibly vindictive and meant to cause the girl bodily harm.

But how do you handle it? Put the kid behind bars for a few hours? Press charges against the parents? How do you terrify a bully enough to get him to stop? Besides exposing his own fears.

Any kid who genuinely wants to hurt another child is in trouble.

And yes, I do mean that. There's being a bratty kid, and there's being a bully, then there's having a lack of compassion and purposely trying to harm someone... or an animal. And, this is old enough for him to know what he was doing.

And no, you can't charge him for assault and lock him up, so what do you? Any of our teachers have any ideas?

Yes, a seven year old can be a sociopath. Horrifying.

Sounds like he was taunting her as well for being different. Kids can be so mean sometimes.

If the boy was about the girls age (7) I'm certain he had no idea of the consequences of his actions.

Ask a 7 year old what allergies are.

But it is mean, though.

There was a recent story where a young woman died shortly after kissing her boyfriend who had just eaten peanut butter.

This is nothing to laugh about. The boy needs to understand the seriousness of his actions.

Heck, most schools will no longer offer peanut butter in the lunch rooms. some have banned kids from bringing peanuts and peanut butter to school.

:shrug:

I read that, horrible. I can't believe the bitching I've heard when a local school asked parents not to pack nut products because of a student's allergy. Damn I swear some thought their children would starve without a PB & J.

Amazing and frightening. My best friend's daughter has a peanut allergy and they have to be fanatically cautious.

This kid knew what he was doing was wrong--I mean, who would "attack" someone with a peanut butter cracker, unless they knew that the peanut butter would make her sick. It's possible he didn't know HOW sick she would get.

Still, he needs a trip to the proverbial woodshed.

peanut butter residue in his mouth, it doesn't seem crazy anymore.

...anything at all about that allergy you wouldn't have written your comment.

The comment about never thinking they'd see the day food was a weapon doesn't have to be snotty or ill informed at all.

Who did think they'd see the day? When I was a kid, when my kids were young peanut butter and jelly was the sandwich of choice, no one ever thought twice about taking it to school, sharing it.

It is so odd that an "innocent" food can be a weapon. It really is odd, but true.

I was just saying it because of the way it happened, I've never heard of anyone attacking anyone with a cracker.

n/t

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

those who can't resist a jab. George Carlin is famous for his insensitivity and he's a comic genius.

Maybe we should just take it for what it is, in bad taste (literally)

I sometimes tend to be Skippy with my comments, so I replied in a Jif.

I didn't mean to be such a goober!

btw. the kid is allright. No-one died. We can make a joke!

why do we just feel obligated to go park our butts on someone's reply and throw shade at them?

I think it's a rule violation by the way - accusing someone of being stupid as a houseplant isn't very civil.

It's a serious issue, but we can also be and do and say lighthearted things at the same time. Really, it's okay. Life is too short.

I like to joke about thins some consider sacred. (especially in situations when no-one died or is critically injured.) There is an ivory tower mentality here at times.

You never know. Maybe someone had a bad experience with a peanut butter allergy...

Me personally, I swell up when I drink too much citrus...I look and talk like Brando (and not the cool-hip-young-Brando...but the rotund-Apocalypse-Now-swollen-beast-whose-tongue-is-hindered-by-his-swollen-cheeks-Brando. Yeah, I laugh at myself too!

That was a cruel joke. Not funny.

I'm usually not in a violent mood, but I think this boy should be charged with her attempted homicide, a peanut allergy is NOT a joke.

And, no, I'm not trying to say he shouldn't be in trouble. He did something wrong which could have had dire consequences.

The thing that irks me about this story is that little boys have been taught (by society, television, parents, others) that harrassing little girls is a part of their God given right. Instead of learning that women are to be cherished and admired, we seem to still be teaching our boys that women are a few steps behind them, covered in cooties and responsible for most (if not all) of society's ills.

mention in this article that the perp was seven. He could be 12 for all I know.

Dads - teach your sons well. They will treat women according to how you treat women.

I would, however, like to say that we shouldn't limit ourselves to teaching our boys that women are to be cherished and admired (although that's a lovely sentiment, thank you).

I believe that we should teach all our children that regardless of gender, color, age, etc., all people are to be respected and treated with kindness.

I'm not too keen on being placed on a pedestal just because of my womanly magic. Men have a particular kind of mojo too. There's no point in comparing apples to oranges when all fruit is good for you and we need a balanced diet.

or "the apple (or orange) doesn't fall far from the tree" -

It does make you wonder what kind of bullying this kid sees that lets him bully someone else.

Even if he didn't know that peanuts would do more than give her a stuffy head, he still somehow got to the idea of bio-terrorizing another child, and that's disturbing.

But he's a kid and kids learn and hopefully some adults can get through to those premises in his head that even got him there to begin with.

When my brother was 7, he and his best friend decided to rob the bank in town. Bro was in charge of procuring the gun from the top of the closet where my father kept them. Nearly blew his leg off.

At that age, most kids are still incapable of understanding concepts like death.

Or mean. A kid that age knows it's cruel to harm an animal, or even tease an animal. No difference here. Being mean or a bully is one thing, but this is taking the cruelness to a scary different level.

Although I agree that boys are taught (or sometimes even forced) to be aggressive towards girls.

who never taunt, hit or in any way antagonize the boys. :sarcasm:

I was speaking to how society, as a whole, teaches little boys that agression is a part of their nature and to be allowed, expected and even celebrated. If you want to argue against my point, please do so. If all you can offer is a sarcastic remark which does not bring us any closer to a solution to the problem at hand, I would suggest you remove yourself from the discussion.

You said "...little boys have been taught (by society, television, parents, others) that harassing little girls is a part of their God given right. Instead of learning that women are to be cherished and admired, we seem to still be teaching our boys that women are a few steps behind them, covered in cooties and responsible for most (if not all) of society's ills."

Riiiight. Once again it's all about the bad bad men who are responsible for all the ills in the world. You've made your point and it is pointless to argue against someone who is advocating from the position of denigrating an entire gender.

Since you are clearly incapable of looking at an issue fairly without interjecting you own prejudices, please take your man-bashing over to the feminist forum where it may be cherished an admired.

My point about women being cherished and admired goes directly back to the current line of thinking that the church is now advocting for women to be submissive to their husbands in all things. They preach and teach this... they rarely mention, however, that there was also a commandment given to the men as to how they are supposed to treat their submissive women.

I'm not the one incapable of addressing an issue without seeing through my own prejudices, sir. That would be you.

Actually they do mention it a lot; Christ is the head of the church as man is head of the woman, etc. And frankly I get sick of hearing it.

I would be the last person to to fall back on some biblical commandment of female subservience, since I'm not only an Atheist, but also a unwavering supporter of gender equality. And I do mean EQUAL.

That is why I bristle at the notion than women are somehow better than men, more deserving of--as you put it--being cherished and admired. Feminism instead of fostering equality now tends toward the idea that men are inherently violent, that masculinity is inherently evil, and somehow we all enter a secret fraternity where these traits are nurtured and developed until we graduate as knuckle-dragging misogynist neanderthals whose idea of a fun time is gang rape. Quite a feat since most men were raised by mothers who generally tend to be women. (I know mine was and if I treated anyone--especially a woman--with disrespect I was in for an ass whoopin')

Now, obviously that is hyperbole--a little tongue-in-cheek--but not too far from what you originally said. I know I'm not going to change your mind, but maybe, just maybe you can understand how my original comment simply addressed the inequality that pervades this thread as people speculate what a horrible little boy he is to attack that girl completely unprovoked. He's a boy so he is obviously a bully, a sociopath, a terrorist, even. (I'm still shocked that some-one actually used the term "bio-terrorist" to describe the kid.)

While that may be the case, I'm going to guess there are two sides to this story. You may now return to your regularly scheduled bashing.

(assumed facts not in evidence--we don't know the age of the boy ...)

I hope the grownups in that boy's life make him realize how serious that incident was and how it could have ended it. Thank goodness it wasn't deadly.

... to do, but he better now, or they've got a psychopath on their hands.

serious talk with him. And I know kids do stupid things.

the age of the boy. If he was 7, like the girl, that's pretty young to understand the ramifications..but somebody should set him straight really fast.

I agree it is all the result, probably, of teachers explaining this stuff to their kids. I have to do it all the time and it does really intrigue them. We have epi pens on hand for this and have used them twice. Scary times.

We don't know the age of the boy. We don't know if the girl with the allergy provoked him either, for the news story has only her side of the story. She may be an irascible child and the interaction may have been standard child bickering rather than a one-sided harassment. Regardless of the situation, the boy was wrong to use a peanut cracker to taunt her if he was aware of her allergy but kids do stupid things all the time.
Charging the boy with assault is not warranted unless there is a pattern of behavior with this boy that needs to be addressed. The boy needs to be counseled on his behavior until school officials feel that he understands why his action was so wrong.

If the bus driver had crumbled a peanut cracker on the girl, there'd be no question that he/she deserved to be charged with assault.

The boy was obviously being very aggressive and bullying, regardless of the little girl "asking for it."

Being a kid isn't a complete free pass.

Gormy Cuss merely suggested that--kids being kids--it possibly wasn't a one-sided "attack" as the article is only from the perspective of the victim. Could be the girl had been tauting and harassing the boy for the entire school year and the boy had finally had enough.

But implicit in your comment--and those of other posters--the boy is automatically a bully who is clearly echoing his father's misogynistic behaviors.

I know man-bashing is a popular pastime here at DU, but can we at least keep it off the kids?

I was simply pointing out that there is not enough information in the short article linked to draw the conclusion that the boy was a regular bully or acting without provocation. Kids pick on each other regularly -- and I mean the mild taunts, not aggressive or bullying behavior. Bullying is in another league and there is nothing in the link to suggest that this boy is known for aggressive behavior or bullying. He may have been acting out, thinking it was a mild goofy thing to do. Or as I said, he may have been reacting to a comment by the girl. Children with allergies aren't automatically blessed as models of childhood behavior. Ever worked in day care or an elementary school?

As I said, the boy does need counseling to make sure he understand how this simple act was very dangerous. That can be said without knowing anything else about him. When a poster suggests that a child should be charged with attempted homicide based on the limited facts presented, that's too much for me.

:evilgrin: absolutely the opposite of what I think for those people here who have no sense of humor whatsoever and enjoy proving it, over and over and over and over.


edited for those same people.

you don't get to say that here. I specifically mean YOU.

edited for civility.

When you become a mod, please feel free to weigh in with your august opinion. Otherwise please feel free to use the ignore button liberally.

to most kids allergies mean hives, sneezing, watery eyes, stuffy head.

As much more widely educated and learned adults we know that allergies can kill and quickly, and especially food allergies.

It's a shame we can't teach this to kids and guarantee that they've learned it . . .

means hives, sneezing, watery eyes.

The lesson isn;t that some allergies are deadly - the lesson is keep your damn hands to yourself and don't bully other kids.

;)

(from another sui reply somewhere around here)

Even if he didn't know that peanuts would do more than give her a stuffy head, he still somehow got to the idea of bio-terrorizing another child, and that's disturbing.

But he's a kid and kids learn and hopefully some adults can get through to those premises in his head that got him there to begin with.

All the kids in the school know about it because they're all been told about the precautions they need to take around him. They all have to use antibacterial stuff on their hands on their way out of the lunchroom (yes, I know it's totally and completely worthless against peanut antigens, but apparently the school nurse insists it's worthwhile; it's very aggravating the way the issue is being window-dressed and I pray that the uselessness of this precaution doesn't end in tragedy---but my point is, they all know why they have to do it).

I think when an allergy is known to be this severe, the kids are told repeatedly how serious it is and how careful they all have to be. Even if the boy was as young as seven, he should have known that this was a very, very, very big deal.

Violence and the intent to injure is the weapon, a
bullet primer charged in the mind, exploding through
the body in to a weapon that carrys the will in to the
physical world to injure and destroy.

Young children model the bullying they see in adults
innocently as if it were a game, that when they
grow up will sadly realize is all too real;
And then they realize that the basis of human society
is ultimately collective thuggery.

Had the young girl taken her open fingers and forced
them with a fierce strike at the boy's neck, she would
probably break a finger or two, as the boy clutched at
his bleeding choking neck, dying there in a pool of blood
on the floor of the school bus, saved by prompt self
defense from further harassment.

then eat the banana, of course.

Sid

He may only be seven, but already he's a bully.

That's why he turned into a psychopath. I'm certain of it.

I just now found a peanut, found a peanut just now.


I can't remember the name of that song, but I'm pretty sure it was ghost written by George Washington Carver.

"Went to heaven, went to heaven, went to heaaaaa-ven just now..."

Even then: THE LETHAL PEANUT.

(not intending to make light of the event in the post)

In fact, that's about all I can remember, having blocked out of my mind my sisters singing that song until I wanted to kill them.

I just read an article about the the numbers of people who die from a food allergy. It's more than I ever would have guessed.

I didn't see that word in a quote from the mother. I think "Local 6" should pull their writers into check.

Bullied - sure. "Attacked?" :eyes:

stop the bus made boy stop harassing girl and take away his crackers. I'm sure she could see what is going on from her rear view mirror.

She may have survived.

I have an aunt with a severe bee-venom allegy. She never leaves the house withut that epi-pen.

should read the op before I go blabbering. Thanks.

my brother forgot to bring the shot for my nephew who has a peanut allergy. My brother was extra cautious the whole weekend (we were out of town at a family party).

And you don't realize how much you cook with nuts, until you're on the outlook for it. Because it's not just peanuts, but the whole, "this was made in a plant that also processes peanuts." Oh, no walnuts, because while he's not allergic to it, it could have peanut residue on it.

Plus the story of the girl that just died from kissing her boyfriend makes everyone even more watchful. I'll pass on the pecan brittle, because it's made in a plant with peanuts, and if I kiss my nephew on the cheek he could react to it.

Oh, and he's not allergic to anything other than peanuts.

when they stopped serving them on airplanes. Is this a new disease? I don't doubt it exists, but when I was a kid PBJ sandwiches and those gross peanut butter crackers were staples.

Any ideas on why so many people become allergic to something as benign as peanuts?

Where does an allergy this severe come from? People are allergic to cat hair, but I've never heard of someone who died just from touching a cat. Why is the peanut allergy so severe?

If someone highly allergic to cats would eat one -- they'd have an anaplactic attack. Eating someone and touching something are very different.

And there are no reasons why.

It's an odd evolutionary step for humanity, we'll see what happens...

with the cleansliness of modern society and people being indoors alot more. kids nowdays are not as exposed to all the stuff floating around as they used to.

I've heard them, those nasty few,
-she's just wants attention
-it can't be that bad
-she's faking because she doesn't like peanut butter
-no one's going to tell me my kid can't have peanut butter sandwiches
-if she is bothered by peanut butter she should go somewhere else

I wonder if this little attacker heard those kinds of comments at home and decided to find out for himself? or is he just a twisted kid that enjoys seeing someone suffer?

Many people say that it is kids being kids and that we have to let them sort it out for themselves. Most of the time this results in hurt feelings and bruises. In this case, it could have been life threatening, which the attacker probably didn't understand at the time.
I developed empathy at an early age. I never tried to hurt anyone. I don't understand why some children take pleasure in hurting others.

Think about the law here. A 7 year old is too young even to send to juvenile for a reason. However, the girl's parents have a very good case against the school district for negligence. The boy needs counseling to prevent him from becoming a sociopath, and, if it was just a prank and he really didnt think it would hurt her, to help with his guilt and shock.

bus. Do you want him to not look at the road, or what? The kid hit the girl with the cracker, for crying out loud, not the huge knife. How do you think bus driver could have prevented that?

him.

It's the American way.

:cry: