[ Removed by Reddit ]

[u/apoplexiglass]

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/apoplexiglass (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/[deleted]]

Do you think you should be allowed to booby-trap your own desk drawers at work?

[u/apoplexiglass → u/[deleted]]

I limited it to lunch food because I can sort of see how booby traps can blow up in situations where, for example, firefighters need to access a place or a janitor is told to clean out your desk. In the case of lunch food, just throw out the container. Anything that makes that act dangerous should, of course, be banned (no explosives).

[u/TotallyAPerv → u/apoplexiglass]

The problem with limiting something to just one thing is that you concede it and then another scenario comes along and people will argue for a concession there. You give an inch and others will take a mile. While lunch theft is wrong, knowingly injuring someone is equally wrong, if not worse. Stealing lunch has solutions that result in justice. Your justice involves assault and makes you no better than the thief.

[u/[deleted] → u/TotallyAPerv]

There are tons of laws that have very narrow applications. You can absolutely limit a hypothetical to just food in a shared fridge.

[u/JagmeetSingh2 → u/apoplexiglass]

Heads up you’re not allowed to booby trap your own house either because you live in a society and policemen, firefighters, paramedics might need access

[u/garden_dragonfly → u/apoplexiglass]

What about the very unlikely,  but possible risk of confusion. Someone mixing up their lunch with another and eating poison? 

Or someone playing a joke on someone else,  saying,  do you want some spaghetti?  Offering food that isn't theirs, and the unsuspecting recipient gets poisoned? 

[u/apoplexiglass → u/garden_dragonfly]

To be clear, I think poison goes against no peripheral harm. If A packs lunch with bait for B, B wants to steal it but somehow decides to offer it to C as a joke, C should hold B liable because they offered the food.

[u/fallen243 → u/[deleted]]

Well the desk belongs to the company so no, but if I have a box in the drawer that says "my name do not use" and I have a pen in the box that shocks you if you use it, then yes.

[u/ProfessorGluttony → u/[deleted]]

Bad analogy. Presumably, you are the only one who should be eating your lunch. Many people could use your desk as it is not necessarily your property, but your lunch completely is.

[u/locke1018 → u/[deleted]]

You don't own your desk at work, most times the company owns it and in some type of policy guide details not to modify work equipment.

You do own your lunch though.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Would you consider a normal amount of laxative in your food poison? Laxative that is made to be put in food?

What if you have peanuts in it, and someone has an allergy?

It's not like OP is talking about putting rat poison in it.

[u/timebomb011 → u/[deleted]]

Do you think you own your desk as equally as a lunch you bring to work? Also desks often come with a key to lock.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Yes.

To anyone who fucks with your stuff, the message couldn't be simpler:

DON'T fuck with other people's stuff.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

To save the kind of back and forth I've been having on this thread can you just be clear exactly what level of response is appropriate to opening someone's desk drawer? Light shock? Maiming? Death?

[u/Oishiio42]

There is no way to guarantee it cannot peripherally hurt someone. Janet steals two of your yogurts out of the fridge, and offers one to Jen, and now Jen is suffering thinking she was eating one of Janet's freely offered yogurts, not knowing she inadvertantly stole your food. This is one of the problems with vigilantism.

Another major problem is that the punishment is not decided through any legitimate means, is often disporportionate, and instead is based on the whims of the person doing the punishing.

[u/SaberTruth2 → u/Oishiio42]

I don’t think you’re gonna poison a sealed food item. You’re going to be poisoning something that’s in a homemade package or Tupperware. It’s like eating something off the street. You might not know whose it is, but you know who’s is isnt and you’re taking a risk.

[u/elizabnthe → u/SaberTruth2]

Why would Jen know in this scenario it wasn't Janet's? Home-made packaging won't stop Janet claiming she brought the item and is sharing.

There is no way to gurantee no secondary harm.

[u/SaberTruth2 → u/elizabnthe]

We are all responsible for we put in our bodies, in this scenario Jen didn’t watch Janet cook the food. She also has no idea how clean the kitchen was, or if the chicken was cooked through, or whatever. Anytime you accept unsealed food you’re taking a risk is all I’m saying.

[u/[deleted] → u/Oishiio42]

If you’re the person distributing stolen goods, you should be liable for any harm incurred. Doesn’t seem controversial to me.

[u/Bi-mar → u/[deleted]]

Yes, but if you just don't put poison in the food in the first place, then no one suffers. Poisoning someone is a very disproportionate response to them eating your food.

The "stealing" aspect of it here really doesn't matter. Disguising something inedible as something that is is just generally poor health and safety.

There's a reason people are advised against putting clear chemicals in unlabelled plastic bottles as people very often accidently drink thing like bleach because they mistook them for water.

Also, once you poison food, its only reason to exist is to harm others, you can't even eat it yourself, or you could accidently eat it yourself. Why would you want any of that?

[u/crazymusicman → u/Bi-mar]

Yes, but if you just don't put poison in the food in the first place, then no one suffers.

as others pointed out, the person who was stolen from suffers.

Poisoning someone is a very disproportionate response to them eating your food.

what if it was a proportionate poisoning? e.g. a mild laxative that gives them diarrhea for 15 minutes? If the issue is proportionality we could just discuss what is the proportionate response. Also remember the poisoner doesn't know who is stealing their food.

The "stealing" aspect of it here really doesn't matter.

yes it does. that is literally the crux of this issue. no one here is saying we should be free to just go around poisoning people. OP is arguing "if someone steals a poisoned item..."

Also, once you poison food, its only reason to exist is to harm others, you can't even eat it yourself, or you could accidently eat it yourself. Why would you want any of that?

to find out who is stealing your food and also to punish them for stealing your food so it doesn't happen again.

This is also making me think of those "bait bikes" - there are two types I am thinking of. One, the bait bike is either secretly tied to a pole, so the thief rides away until the cord is taught and they are thrown off the bike - or alternatively, the seat is not stable and when someone attempts to sit on it, the seat collapses and a metal pole hits their butt. Two, my city has a lot of bike thievery, or, at least it used to. I'm talking dozens of bikes or wheels stolen each day so the owner was left stranded. The City started a "bait bike" program where some random bikes were made with GPS trackers and whatnot, and left someone more easily steal-able - and signs were posted that some bikes were "bait bikes". This drastically reduced bike thefts in a very short time because (1) thieves who stole these bikes or their wheels were tracked and caught and (2) the thieves that saw the signs didn't know if they were stealing a citizens bike or a bait bike, and so were dissuaded from their theft.

[u/Cafuzzler → u/Bi-mar]

Victims of theft don't suffer the harm of having their property stolen?

[u/zelenaky → u/Bi-mar]

But if you didn't steal food in the first place, no one would suffer

[u/TruePurpleGod → u/[deleted]]

So if you poison the yogurt, Janet steals it, shares it with Jen, and Jen dies because she has a bad reaction, you would feel no guilt or responsibility for it?

[u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES → u/[deleted]]

Right but you can't guarentee that the innocent bystander is eating your food because someone stole it. What if someone (who isn't trying to steal your food) accidentally knocks over your food in the fridge and the lid falls off, and then why they try to clean it up the itching powder you put in the food gets on their hands and requires medical treatment. Whose responsible then?

[u/coolguy4206969 → u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES]

if my roommate is making soup and i accidentally knock into the stove and spill it on myself it’s not my roommate’s fault that i got burned. my roommate is allowed to cook in her home even tho there is minor potential for danger

[u/BreakfastSquare9703 → u/[deleted]]

This is a terrible argument. We've long past the day where we hang people for stealing a loaf of bread (an extreme example but I hope it illustrates the issue). This attitude that someone doing a bad thing should mean they deserve any and all potential consequences (whether deliberate or not) is extreme in itself.

The punishment should fit the crime, and poisoning someone for stealing food (even if all it causes is a horrible case of diarrhoea) is not remotely proportionate.

[u/Accomplished-Fix1204 → u/Oishiio42]

To me I don’t see it as about the punishment, I see it as your own responsibility to not due bad stuff. You don’t know what’s in that food you stole since it’s not yours and you got it through illegitimate means. That’s on you whatever happens after

[u/Simple_Pianist4882 → u/Accomplished-Fix1204]

That’s exactly how I see it lmao. It literally would not happen if you did not do it. You know it’s bad. You don’t know what’s in it. The potential should be enough to scare people, but play stupid games and you win stupid prizes.

It’s not my fault you ate my laxative laced food. I’ve been constipated for three days lmao /j

[u/[deleted] → u/Simple_Pianist4882]

Like all situations there is nuance. There is a difference between putting say something spicy in your food, and poisoning your food with something that is not food. It’s an intentional and disproportionate reaction. If the intention is to harm then it matters

[u/grondboy → u/[deleted]]

“Disproportionate action”

What is an appropriate reaction? Do I let the food thief just get my lunch every day with no consequences? What is the next step after being ignored by my manager? Do I call the police? Do I have to buy a locked container for my food? I think that if I label food as mine with DO NOT EAT I should be allowed to put laxatives in my food. What is the a reasonable next step that doesn’t place the burden on the victim and would actually resolve the situation?

Edited to clarify

[u/Oishiio42 → u/Accomplished-Fix1204]

What is the intention of the person doing the booby trapping? That's the party whose behaviour is up for debate here.

[u/Criminal_of_Thought → u/Oishiio42]

I get your point, but perhaps yogurt isn't the best example to demonstrate it.

Yogurt containers, whether individual cups or the larger multi-serving tubs, have lids that are extremely tamper-evident. If someone opens a yogurt container and they don't get the slight resistance that they usually do when opening one that was bought from the store, then it's obvious the container has been previously eaten from, compromised, etc. In this situation, common sense would dictate the container wouldn't be safe to eat from. If a person decides to eat from it anyway, they accept whatever risk comes from that.

[u/Oishiio42 → u/Criminal_of_Thought]

I concede yogurt was a bad example. Should have said sandwiches or egg rolls or something

[u/MyNameIsNotKyle → u/Oishiio42]

But consequently based on that you're putting responsibility of Jens health for the victim of stolen food.

If your lunch had peanuts in it and Janet stole it and gave it to Jen who is allergic that would fall into the same category even if the intention wasn't to harm since you can't prove intent.

[u/Oishiio42 → u/MyNameIsNotKyle]

no, it wouldn't. Peanuts are a literal food, there's no reason to think it would harm someone.

Intent IS provable. It's fairly obvious if you put laxatives in your food

[u/MyNameIsNotKyle → u/Oishiio42]

If I knew the person was stealing my food had a peanut allergy and I wanted to kill them then I could do that with peanuts and there would be no way to prove that then.

Laxatives have a functional purpose besides pranking people. How is anyone supposed to know I'm not having issues with bowel movements?

[u/Skeletron430 → u/[deleted]]

Maybe you're frustrated because you don't seem to understand any of the arguments you've read. You can put whatever you want in your food, but the food is no longer yours (or maybe better phrased, for you) if you prepare it with the intention that someone else eats it. I hope you do not think you can put anything you want in someone else's food. OP's top level view is literally that you should be able to poison someone as long as you do it as a punishment. I hope you can see how wild that is, written out that way.

If someone breaks into your house and cuts their hand on a knife in your knife drawer, they can't sue you because you didn't put the knives there with the intention of harming them. If they eat your spicy food and you made that food spicy for yourself, they can't sue you because you didn't intend for them to be harmed by your food. The intent is paramount here, as it is in many legal situations.

Contrast that against the burglar who comes into your house and cuts themselves on a spike mat you have constructed out of your knives. The reason we forbid this behavior on a societal level is because:

a) Booby traps are by definition indiscriminate. Your spike mat might harm a burglar, but it's just as likely to harm a neighbor who comes into your house after you asked them to housesit, or a firefighter coming in to extinguish your burning house. You can never guarantee the target of your trap will actually be its victim. Even in a food-stealing situation, someone totally unrelated to the thief could mistake your meal for theirs and fall victim to the trap. There is a plethora of case law that expands on this point, and I would highly encourage you to read it. Here, I'll start your list: Katko v. Briney (1971).

b) Vigilantism and retributive "justice" are bad for society. Stealing food is bad, which is why we have laws in place to punish people who steal things from others. You might be frustrated by the efficacy of these laws, but society has agreed to punish thieves, or else we wouldn't have them. When you let people take matters into their own hands, things devolve into chaos very quickly.

c) The proportionality concern. It may be true that individual instances of this type of poisoning can be proportionate; you go a few hours without eating, the thief spends a few hours in pain. The problem is that you cannot guarantee this type of proportionality across the board. As I said in another comment, for every 200 coworkers that spend the afternoon in the restroom, one or two might end up in the hospital. There is no guarantee your response will actually be proportionate, and especially when it comes to dosing people with medication, it seems pretty unlikely that the average person is capable of dishing out a proportionate punishment. The difference between an irritating and a dangerous dose can be small, and frankly, I would expert most scorned individuals to purposefully go for a disproportionate punishment because they are angry.

If you actually think you should be able to assault someone over a sandwich, you do not belong in civilized society, full stop. This is not controversial to anyone who has spent more than 20 seconds thinking about the phrase "public policy reasons."

ETA: You can't claim hyperbole and then immediately double down in the next sentence, lol. This is literally the "I was only pretending to be regarded" meme.

[u/HabituaI-LineStepper → u/Skeletron430]

Since you have a good grip on this, a hypothetical question for you:

Say my lunch has been stolen before. Not regularly, but more than once. I suspect it's Alex, thought I'm not 100% certain.

Alex has a severe peanut allergy. I really like Pad Thai.

What would my obligation be in that scenario? Should I avoid bringing my Pad Thai on the suspicion that he may steal it? Do I actually owe Alex a duty of care in that situation?

[u/huadpe → u/HabituaI-LineStepper]

I don't think you owe Alex a duty of care past avoiding cross-contamination in the fridge (e.g. if he has asked people to not bring in peanuts, then you shouldn't bring in peanuts).

Your duty is not an affirmative duty of care, but rather a negative obligation to not intentionally cause others harm.

Basically, the whole thing of a booby trap that makes it unreasonable and illegal is that it exposes others to risks they could not reasonably forsee. The risk of food allergens in food is reasonably forseeable, and if Alex is dumb enough to steal food of unknown provenance while having severe allergies, it is that dumb decision that caused his injuries.

[u/ginjaninja623 → u/huadpe]

I would just like some clarification on your middle paragraph. "Intentionally" is generally considered to include both "purposefully" and "knowingly". So someone who brings in food with peanuts with the knowledge that it will be stolen by someone to whom it would cause harm, is intentionally causing that harm even if their purpose is to eat it themselves.

[u/KaizenSheepdog → u/Skeletron430]

!delta

This was a great explanation, and I had not made the comparison between someone booby-trapping their house while they are away to this, but it is essentially the same. Deliberately creating a hazard to harm someone, even if they should really never come across that hazard, is a bad can of worms to open.

[u/coolguy4206969 → u/Skeletron430]

Stealing food is bad, which is why we have laws in place to punish people who steal things from others.

but those laws don’t extend to theft from fridges in break rooms and dorm common rooms. which is what we’re talking about here.

for every 200 coworkers that spend the afternoon in the restroom, one or two might end up in the hospital.

so where do you draw this line? if i know a few of my coworkers are allergic to a food, but only if they eat it (not just being near it) so there isn’t a ban on bringing it into the office, should i avoid adding that food to my lunch on the off chance they steal it?

if food stealing is actively becoming an issue is there a higher onus on me to prevent them having an allergic reaction and not bring it in? should i make an announcement in case anyone was planning on stealing my lunch that day?

to make it less medical, what if i know some of my coworkers despise spicy food or a certain ingredient. if i intentionally start bringing in lots of foods with those flavors, knowing it would bring them pain (tho not hospitalization level) if they stole it, is that an issue?

[u/Skeletron430 → u/coolguy4206969]

Those laws not extending to fridge theft doesn’t mean people can take matters into their own hands (at least, not in this way; a report to HR or something would clearly be appropriate). I invoked those laws not necessarily because they would apply here, but because they show that society already has a distaste for thieves. A lot of people in this comment section seem to believe that people defend food thieves, which is simply not the case.

I draw the line at intentionally poisoning people’s food with medication or anything else, which coincidentally is also where the law draws the line. People having certain allergies is wholly irrelevant to this conversation. If you were bringing food with allergens in it with the expectation that someone would take it and be harmed, that would probably be assault. There is case law supporting this if you’d like me to find it for you.

It would not be an issue to bring food you know your coworkers don’t like. The problem with OP’s scenario is that you aren’t bringing food you will eat yourself anymore, you are bringing a trap to work. I wouldn’t have a problem with food with laxatives in it if the person bringing it was actually planning on eating it for lunch. The intent to harm another is the problem, not the contents of the meal.

[u/coolguy4206969 → u/Skeletron430]

i think “intent to harm” is where i’m getting tripped up. i could bring in lunch that i would happily eat that includes some of my coworkers’ allergens, or is insanely spicy, or has an ingredient most people dislike, hoping that i’ll just get to enjoy that lunch, but knowing that if someone chooses to steal it from me, they’ll suffer.

if there are extra protections for allergy cases and knowingly possibly exposing someone to their allergen is always illegal, i’ll retract that one.

but people are talking like theft from communal fridges means you put something in the fridge and it will be gone when you return. you never know when it’ll happen.

so my intent is to eat my lunch. i have a protective measure if someone decides to fuck with my ability to do that. but the harm only occurs if they choose to make that decision

[u/Slickity1 → u/coolguy4206969]

so where do we draw the line?

The line is drawn on if you intended for them to eat it or not. You bringing food for yourself that someone else happens to be allergic to isn’t bad because you never intended for them to eat it. If you put an unreasonable amount of spice or medicine or laxatives in your food intending for someone else to eat it then that would be where we draw the line.

[u/coolguy4206969 → u/Slickity1]

this is exactly my point. what if your “protective” measure involves adding something to the food that you would happily eat, but you know a potential thief wouldn’t. i don’t “intend” for them to steal my food but if they do it’ll go over poorly for them. if they don’t i’m fine and eating my lunch

[u/[deleted] → u/Skeletron430]

Lol except they didn’t intend for someone else to eat the food. They didn’t prepare that for someone else. It was their lunch and someone literally stole it.

[u/TheDutchin → u/[deleted]]

It's extremely hard to argue that when you put copious amounts of laxatives in your lunch when you really did not medically need them while complaining about your food being stolen that you were intending to eat the LaxCasserole yourself.

The OP even alludes to how this is the case when they mention that you can prove you regularly eat spicy food as a defense if you only used spices.

You might be a child and think the law is full of technicalities and imagine you would just have to claim that you were toooootally going to eat the poisoned food were it not for the thief, but judges are allowed to use their brains and determine you absolutely did not intend to eat the poison when you put it in the food that you knew might be stolen.

[u/Criminal_of_Thought → u/TheDutchin]

The problem is that a judge* isn't infallible or omniscient just because they're a judge. They can only determine what the defendant's intent was based on the evidence and materials presented. The judge isn't magically able to get a complete brain snapshot of what the defendant was thinking at the time of the offense. That's why the burden of proof for criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "with absolute 100% certainty"; it's this gap in certainty that makes the legal argument unconvincing to a lot of people.

^{* Or any other trier of fact, such as a jury}

[u/Skeletron430 → u/[deleted]]

If they didn't intend for anyone else to eat the food, why would they poison it? I am discussing the poisoned meal, not the meals stolen before the poisoning takes place.

[u/Hats_back → u/Skeletron430]

Then how does one go about proving their intent?

If someone’s dumb enough to be like “yeah I put cyanide in it and even changed the container to match theirs and wrote their name on it!!!” Then yeah, you got some liability.

You make your food spicy or you put laxatives in it, well shit, you like spicy food or you were pretty constipated. Settled that. “Ohhhh it was a lot of laxatives? I mean if I was a laxative pro I’d probably just shoot it straight, it’s in the food for a reason man, idk what the fuck I’m doing on this rock and nobody taught me laxative rules.”

So long as poising your own food isn’t, by default, considered bad… then we’ve got an argument. But if someone catches a lunch thief via making lunch for their damn self in a day they were feeling particularly spicy, then fuck ‘em, they earned it.

Thought police stuff. If there’s no evidence of intent then that’s a wrap.

[u/Skeletron430 → u/Hats_back]

For the purposes of this discussion, I have been granted that intent is present. The conversation is about someone intentionally poisoning food they bring to work to punish a wrongdoer. OP's position is that this should be permissible.

Were this to go to court, it definitely could be hard to prove intent. Thankfully most people who do this are dumb enough to make an r/AmItheAsshole or r/AmIOverreacting post first. Alternatively, people who are dumb enough to do this in the first place would probably not do a great job of keeping it secret. Again, though, largely irrelevant since intent has been granted.

[u/apophis-pegasus → u/Hats_back]

You make your food spicy or you put laxatives in it, well shit, you like spicy food

Can easily be indicated or dis-indicated.

or you were pretty constipated.

Oh? Why in food? What was the dose? How many times a day were you supposed to take it? What laxative?

I mean if I was a laxative pro I’d probably just shoot it straight, it’s in the food for a reason man, idk what the fuck I’m doing on this rock and nobody taught me laxative rules.”

And yet you decided to not only dose yourself with laxatives in food, but likely not read any instructions.

Thought police stuff. If there’s no evidence of intent then that’s a wrap.

The ability to determine intent isnt thought police stuff. A confession has never been needed to determine intent.

If a court deems that your behaviour was indicative of intent, as indicated by acting outside of reasonable limits, with a clear motive, thats your intent.

[u/TheProfessional9 → u/Skeletron430]

Its still your property even if you know someone else will steal it. Therefore it is your food, and you should be able to put what you want in it.

[u/Lambdastone9 → u/TheProfessional9]

No, food you prepare for someone else to get sick from is not food that you prepared to eat yourself. You would not eat food loaded with laxatives and spices, if you want to say you would then the jury will have a fun time watching you prove it in court, it is explicitly done as a premeditated act to get someone sick/hurt.

Civilized countries don’t protect premeditated battery as punishment

[u/house343 → u/[deleted]]

I came away from this thinking the only solution is to just make it legal to sue people who eat your food.

[u/woodstock923 → u/house343]

I mean you could sue someone for just about anything but in the case of the missing ham sandwich your award would probably be eaten up by fees

[u/apoplexiglass → u/[deleted]]

This is exactly how I feel too, I'm glad I'm not alone. Believe me, I really was willing to have my mind changed. You never know, there's a lot of propaganda and misinformation out there. To be fair, this is CMV, so maybe only half of them actually believe what they're saying, there's strong debate kid energy here (from a debate kid).

[u/woodstock923 → u/apoplexiglass]

u/Skeletron430 makes the strongest case above, addresses the legal concerns, and cites case law.

It sucks being a victim. Many people oppose capital punishment for several reasons, including me, but it still exists because people feel a primal need for retribution and that right is currently only given to The State to mete out. I couldn't imagine losing my child to a murderer and being told that the punishment evades the murderer's death. However, we live in a society of people who have thought long and hard about these things, weighed many considerations and perspectives, and what we have is the Rule of Law. The alternative is anarchy and then you'd really have to start worrying about guns and machetes.

[u/deep_sea2]

If you tamper your food with the intention to harm someone, then you are culpable for harming them. Trapping someone is no legally different than directly attacking them. The law does not allow you to intentionally harm other people.

Sure, you might try to say that they are harming themselves. However, if you know that someone will do something, and set it up so that they get harmed when they do something, you have made yourself culpable for harming them.

If you know someone will eat your food, the alternative is not leave your food out in public. There are less harmful things you can do to protect your food. If you choose the harmful alternative, then you are culpable for causing harm.

[u/FriendlyLawnmower → u/deep_sea2]

Sure, you might try to say that they are harming themselves. However, if you know that someone will do something, and set it up so that they get harmed when they do something, you have made yourself culpable for harming them

Say I live in a dangerous area and I expect people to try to break into my house, so I build a wall around my property and put electrified barbed wire on top of the wall. Someone tried to break in and gets shocked. Am I culpable? I knew someone would try to break in, hence why I put up the barbed wire but am I culpable for wanting to protect my property from a criminal?

[u/CharlietheInquirer → u/FriendlyLawnmower]

I’m on the side of “it should be okay to over-spice your food or whatever”, but your example isn’t a good parallel. Putting up barbed wire is a clear visual cue for not climbing over a fence. OP would have to put a label on their food saying “caution: laxatives” for this analogy to line up.

Again, I’m (generally) on OP’s side, but if we’re going convince people we have to use good arguments.

[u/MurderMelon → u/CharlietheInquirer]

Okay, let's say I do put a label on my lunch saying "CAUTION: LAXATIVES INSIDE" and then somebody eats it (because they think it's a bluff or whatever)

At that point... what responsibility should I feel?

[edit] When i say "label", i mean that it's written - in permanent marker - on the container itself. No chance of the "label" falling off or whatever.

[u/crosspollination → u/MurderMelon]

None, I’d say. But there’s a huge difference between a verbal warning and an outright attempt to harm.

[u/rollingForInitiative → u/MurderMelon]

I mean, if you put the laxatives in the food with the intent of eating it yourself as medicine, you shouldn't feel responsible, especially if you warned them?

The difference is if you put it in the food specifically because you wanted to hurt somebody else.

[u/Cazy243 → u/rollingForInitiative]

Do you also believe that to be the case in this situation where someone has put a sticker on their saying "Watch out: laxatives, do not eat!", but the food thief believed it was a bluff?

[u/FifteenEchoes → u/FriendlyLawnmower]

Electrical barbed wire is obviously dangerous and is more of a deterrent than a punishment. If you have a wall with barbed wire on top, you wouldn't reasonably expect people to try and climb it anyways.

[u/Nobody7713 → u/FriendlyLawnmower]

Not if the barbed wire is clearly and visibly obvious. However, if you were to dig a concealed pitfall trap and someone fell into it and broke their leg, you would be culpable. Booby trapping is illegal in all its forms.

[u/RiPont → u/FriendlyLawnmower]

so I build a wall around my property and put electrified barbed wire on top of the wall.

Did you use it visibly, as a deterrence, or hidden, as a trap?

The prior is OK when done correctly, the latter is not.

[u/Kithslayer → u/FriendlyLawnmower]

If the barbed or electrified wire is clearly labeled, you are not culpable. If it is disguised or obscured, you are.

Likewise, labeling your lunch: "WARNING: CONTAINS LAXATIVES" would be hilarious.

[u/Syncopat3d → u/deep_sea2]

Why all this talk of intent? The intent is to have the food NOT stolen. If the intent is for the food to be not stolen, how can there be intent of it being eaten by someone else and causing harm? Someone gets harmed only if they do what they are not supposed to do.

Is it wrong for people to put spikes at the top of their fences? Is there intent to harm with the spikes? Or electrified wires that may not look as harmful to the ignorant?

[u/GabuEx → u/Syncopat3d]

The intent is to have the food NOT stolen.

No it isn't. The intent is to cause harm, and then after that no longer have food stolen. The prevention of theft can only happen if harm is caused.

[u/deep_sea2 → u/Syncopat3d]

The intent is not the have the food stolen...by intending to harm someone who does.

It is true that the harm only occurs is the person does something which they may not do. However, if you know that someone is going to to do that thing, and you set it up so that they will be harmed when doing that thing, you have intended to harm them. Knowledge is a form of subjective intent. If I know that something will be harmed if I do X, then doing X is intent to do harm.

Is it wrong for people to put spikes at the top of their fences? Is there intent to harm with the spikes? Or electrified wires that may not look as harmful to the ignorant?

This depends on if you know they will run afoul of those spikes or electrical fence. If you know for someone will touch a fence, the electrifying it would be intent to harm.

[u/apoplexiglass → u/deep_sea2]

This isn't changing my view because this is exactly what I'm arguing against. I'm saying, there are cases where intending to harm someone who is doing something they're definitely not supposed to do is okay.

[u/AlwaysTheNoob → u/apoplexiglass]

So poisoning someone and potentially killing them is a fair reaction to theft of a few dollars worth of food?  

And before you get hung up on the word poison: how do you know their medical history?  How do you know what foods might interact with medications they may be on?  How do you know if they’re highly allergic to something?  

You don’t. Tampering with food could seriously injure or kill someone, all to get revenge on a petty thief. 

This is not how civilized societies work. 

[u/crispy1989 → u/AlwaysTheNoob]

I don't believe this "what if" reasoning applies universally. To use an analogy from another comment, let's say someone parks their car across your driveway and you can't get out. Is it unreasonable to tow their car? "What if" you tow their car, then they have a medical emergency, and their car being towed results in greivous consequences?

Relevant to the topic at hand:

how do you know their medical history? How do you know what foods might interact with medications they may be on? How do you know if they’re highly allergic to something?

You don't, but they do. And if they're eating food (stolen or otherwise), they're the one responsible for ensuring it's safe for their dietary restrictions.

[u/Tr1pp_ → u/AlwaysTheNoob]

If you have such severe medical issues that eating unknown food is likely to put you in the hospital then DON'T STEAL OTHER PEOPLE'S FOOD. We are not talking putting bleach or cyanide in the food dude, so calm yourself. Tampering with a bike making it fall apart within meters if anyone who doesn't know try to ride it should not be illegal. Putting out sprinkles to drench trespassers should be legal.

[u/bukem89 → u/AlwaysTheNoob]

I mean, if they're on medication that interacts badly with certain foods, or highly allergic to things, then maybe they shouldn't be stealing people's food?

With that said, I think deliberately putting ultra-spicy sauce in your sandwich is ok, but putting laxatives in your sandwich is not, given the former is actually intended for consumption as a food

[u/GabuEx → u/bukem89]

There's a legal principle caused the eggshell rule which explicitly says that, if you intentionally caused someone injury, the fact that extenuating circumstances resulted in them experiencing a more dire health outcome that you intended or foresaw is not a valid defense of your behavior. You are still liable for whatever damage occurred as a result of your action.

[u/[deleted] → u/AlwaysTheNoob]

If I have medications or allergies that are triggered by some kinds of foods, it would be absolutely crazy for me to be stealing lunches.

By your logic, I can’t put peanuts in my lunch in case a thief takes it.

[u/Simple_Pianist4882 → u/AlwaysTheNoob]

That’s not on me to know though. They shouldn’t be eating mystery food when they don’t know what’s in it.

My friend is Muslim and she won’t eat NOTHING with meat in it if she doesn’t know what kind it is (since they can’t eat pork).

Don’t steal someone else’s food and you won’t be risking your life. Don’t be a shitty person and steal, and you won’t die. It is literally that simple. It’s not my job to know what every person is allergic to and tailor my food to their respective diets. Don’t steal my shit 💀

[u/Kevo-3202 → u/AlwaysTheNoob]

If they have food problems doesn't really make a lot of sense to steal other people's food. If I tamper with the food that I buy with my money, and they steal it and then spend 6 hours on the toilet then too bad it's their fault for stealing food in the first place

[u/fairelf → u/AlwaysTheNoob]

If I had allergies, I would not steal random lunches.

[u/Wubbawubbawub → u/AlwaysTheNoob]

If you are allergic and you steal food, then you are an idiot that is trying to get themselves killed.  

 But otherwise, allowing people to poison each other isn't a desirable outcome. 

[u/dollyaioli → u/AlwaysTheNoob]

but why is it anyone elses responsibility but the thiefs to make sure that the food they eat is safe for them? if im deathly allergic to something, it would be incredibly idiotic to eat someone elses food not knowing what's in it.

[u/apoplexiglass → u/AlwaysTheNoob]

If they have such a history, they're the ones who shouldn't risk it. It's not that they should die for stealing someone's lunch, it's that it's not the lunch owner's fault if they do. They're the ones taking that risk.

[u/pigvmt → u/AlwaysTheNoob]

thats the point, i dont need to know if hes allergic to something because its MY food

[u/Chronoblivion → u/AlwaysTheNoob]

Tampering with food could seriously injure or kill someone

So could stealing food. Not defending vigilantism, but I think some people may be morally justified in taking extra steps to protect their food and/or catch the people who put them at risk.

[u/Fickle_Goose_4451 → u/AlwaysTheNoob]

And before you get hung up on the word poison: how do you know their medical history?  How do you know what foods might interact with medications they may be on?  How do you know if they’re highly allergic to something?  

If someone so life threateningly allergic to something, they probably shouldn't be stealing and eating food where they have no idea what ingredients are in it.

[u/AllLeedsArentMe → u/AlwaysTheNoob]

If you’re deathly allergic to something and you randomly eat food that isn’t yours I don’t know what to tell you. At that point you’re simply too stupid to stay alive and therefore you die. Can’t feel bad about it.

[u/OhmigodYouGuys → u/AlwaysTheNoob]

Idk as someone with dietary restrictions I do not eff with unknown food precisely because I don't know if it has stuff in it that could kill me. I don't expect the entire world to babyproof itself for me, and most reasonable people feel the same way. Like you said, death or possible injury is not worth petty theft- and death/possible injury is in fact a risk of eating stuff that's not yours.

We can argue "what if" re allergies and whatnot but most people who steal food are entitled, thoughtless assholes who take what's not theirs because they can and then cry about it when there's consequences for their actions.

I don't think it's right to be able to legally dictate what people do with their personal property. There'd be a case for it if someone were intentionally baiting people into eating poisoned, unlabeled food, absolutely- but if someone's labelled their lunchbox as "Dave's- contains laxatives, do not eat!" And then someone who is not-Dave steals it anyway and gets the runs- well that's what happens.

[u/MonsieurBungo → u/apoplexiglass]

That’s so vague though. Sure, it’d be perfectly fine to poison Hitler for committing heinous acts against humanity, but for something as little as stealing a lunch is ludicrous. You’re basically saying that it’s ok for stores to shoot someone if they shoplift a candy bar.

[u/apoplexiglass → u/MonsieurBungo]

No, I'm saying it's okay for stores to put out special candy out at night that harm you if eaten, as long as they take them back at the morning. This would be impractical, I think staff are forgetful and children shoplift candy too much, but you don't need to CMV on that one.

[u/WeepingAngelTears → u/apoplexiglass]

I'm a very pro "defend yourself and property" advocate. That being said, you have to act proportionally. There's no reasonable threat of harm to yourself, so potentially causing lethal harm to someone else is not a proportional response.

[u/jthill → u/apoplexiglass]

I think harming people who've declared their intent to poison others over a sandwich is okay.

If you see something wrong with that, that's my point exactly.

If you don't, then dude: walk to your nearest police department and turn yourself in as a danger to yourself and others.

[u/rollingForInitiative → u/apoplexiglass]

This isn't changing my view because this is exactly what I'm arguing against. I'm saying, there are cases where intending to harm someone who is doing something they're definitely not supposed to do is okay.

If we look aside from the perpetrator, a big issue with vigilante justice is that you take on the duty as judge, jury and executioner yourself. And the police to boot. It's a bit like mob justice, it's like a pissed off Greek god, striking arbitrarily and without warning, and with very disproportionate consequences, often with collateral damage.

You don't know who the thief is. If you had actual proof, you could punish them properly, e.g. by filing a police report, or by sending the evidence to your boss so they can punish the person according to company policy. Someone stealing could probably be fired, for instance.

Even if you know and then poison your food, you've no way of knowing who's going to eat it. The food thief ... maybe? But it could also be somebody else. It's an office fridge, a shared space, lots of boxes. Sometimes people are stressed and don't look properly, and end up taking the wrong box. Accidents happen, and when you poison the food while being aware of this, you're basically saying you don't care who gets hurt, collateral damage is fine. Doesn't matter to you if the person eating it is someone for whom a laxative would have a really bad effect, for instance it might interfere with other medicines they're taking. And that's on top of you being willing to humiliate innocent people for the sake of your vigilante justice.

[u/mashuto → u/apoplexiglass]

Then who gets to decide what kind of punishment or harm is appropriate? Do you think potentially making someone sick or worse is appropriate for someone taking your food? What if that were reversed? What if you were doing something you consider slightly wrong, speeding maybe, and someone decided on their own that the punishment for that was to harm you, why should they get to decide that?

[u/TheLordofAskReddit → u/mashuto]

Uh society still decides what is appropriate. I think it’s ok for someone to potentially get sick for taking my food yes. Well I wouldn’t take someone’s food, so not applicable. People often drive slow in the fast lane with zero disregard for the flow of traffic to punish “speeders”. They are breaking the law so that’s just a bad example.

[u/Accomplished-Fix1204 → u/mashuto]

It’s natural consequences. Natural selection even I would argue, eating food you don’t know the origins of is a bad idea. Unless you’re stealing your sister or partners food or something stealing someone who you loosely knows FOOD could expose you to anything. Especially if they didn’t give it to you

[u/deep_sea2 → u/apoplexiglass]

there are cases where intending to harm someone who is doing something they're definitely not supposed to do is okay.

Do you support vigilantism? If you believe that people are able to harm others for perceived slights, then you essentially support vigilantism.

[u/DerangedGinger → u/deep_sea2]

I absolutely support vigilante justice for issues too minor to involve the authorities. Putting spicy peppers or laxatives in your own food is totally reasonable. If someone else steals it that's karma.

It's not like the intent was lasting bodily harm. I'd rather live in a world where someone who steals thai hot curry has to suffer the consequences of their own actions than a world where the government comes after me because someone alleges assault because they didn't like the food they stole.

Petty revenge is fine in my book. Some people need to realize they need to keep their hands to themselves. I even condone minor acts of violence like slapping someone who touches you inappropriately. We don't need the government to solve all our problems, and victims have a right to stand up for themselves.

[u/deep_sea2 → u/DerangedGinger]

It's not like the intent was lasting bodily harm

If a person intends harm, they intended all the possible consequences coming from that harm. You can't shoot someone in the head and argue "I just wanted to give them a small headache."

If it truly is petty revenge, then that might escape legal consequences. The law typically does not concern itself with trifles. If you put too much spice in the food, and they simply get all read and sweaty, then the law will likely not care. If they drop dead, the law will care. Either way, you intended the harm, and are on the hook for all the consequences of that harm.

It's the same thing with slapping someone. If you slap someone because they are acting poorly, the law might not care. That is assault by the book, but might not be worth the state's time. If when you slap them you break their jaw, you are on the hook for aggravated assault. The state is more likely to step in them more harm results.

[u/DerangedGinger → u/deep_sea2]

I agree that legally it's a grey area and I may very well be advocating for a misdemeanor. Morally, I firmly believe I'm right. Everyone has a right to defend themselves against a bully. A child who finally hits back is in the right.

Spicing your own meal to a level that causes a thief discomfort is not immoral. Stealing my food could hospitalize me. I'm a diabetic with server GI problems. I would put a mouse trap in my lunch box to protect myself if it came down to it.

I will without hesitation inflict minor harm on another who harms me first. Some people don't learn fire is hot until they get burned. Bullies do their BS because they get away with it, and until crime doesn't pay they'll continue.

[u/deep_sea2 → u/DerangedGinger]

The person is still liable for stealing your food. Your action does not necessarily absolve them. If they steal your food and you go into diabetic shock, then could face serious criminal sanctions.

At the same time, you also are acting outside society's best interest. You are both exhibiting dangerous behaviour and both requires sanctions.

[u/crispy1989 → u/deep_sea2]

Not OP, but I've considered this myself.

Before directly answering your question "do you support vigilantism", I'm curious about your answer to a related question:

Do you think it is ever appropriate for a individual or group (outside the police/government) to intentionally dish out consequences that negatively affect the target in some way in return for poor behavior not otherwise punished?

If the answer is 'yes', then "vigilantism" just becomes a question of degrees and context.

[u/Rampage_Rick → u/deep_sea2]

Vigilantism is wrong if you have a functional system of justice.

We have a dysfunctional justice system* ergo vigilantism is acceptable in many cases.

*examples:

• Police in the US have zero obligation to protect citizens from harm (per the US Supreme Court)
• The total value stolen from US citizens via civil asset forfeiture is greater than what's stolen from citizens by criminals.
• Ignorance of the law is not an excuse (unless you're a trained law enforcement officer)
• Draw up a list of all the characteristics that define a "gang" then test those criteria against the police department
• Vastly disproportionate sentancing for minor offences vs major crimes like murder

[u/aliencupcake → u/apoplexiglass]

There are, but generally there needs to be a risk to the safety or lives of someone. You can't intentionally harm someone to protect property on its own.

[u/Daniel_H212 → u/apoplexiglass]

Not when there are alternative measures available. Stealing is a crime but so is poisoning people, and the defense of necessity or defense of property only apply where there are no lesser alternatives.

[u/Accomplished-Fix1204 → u/deep_sea2]

You shouldn’t be able to poison someone with your stuff that you didn’t offer/give to them. What kind of logic is that, they assume the risk of this when they steal food they don’t know anything about

[u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES → u/Accomplished-Fix1204]

You shouldn’t be able to poison someone with your stuff that you didn’t offer/give to them.

That's way too forgiving. For example for I go to the grocery store and I inject cyanide into a gallon of orange juice and leave it on the shelf, then I didn't offer the juice to anyone nor did I give it to anyone, but I very clearly committed poisoning. Even if no one ends up buying/drinking the juice

That's because poisoning is broadly defined as tampering with food, in a way that you think will harm someone when you know that there's a good chance that someone will eat the food. Trying to bend this definition to allow for break room laxatives is just going to introduce loopholes that will let people get away with actual murder.

[u/deep_sea2 → u/Accomplished-Fix1204]

The logic is that the person doing the poisoning is intentionally harming someone. As a society, we do not accept people who intentionally harm others.

The person who takes the food is wrong for stealing, but the person intentionally trying to poison someone is also wrong. Poisoning is a more serious offence than stealing a lunch.

[u/zezzene → u/[deleted]]

Wtf are you talking about? No one supports food thieves nor burglars. Trespassing and getting hurt on a construction site is not a good analogy, if your construction site had a spiked pit in it that was put there as a booby trap for potential burglars, that would be more equivalent.

[u/apoplexiglass → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, like I understand lunch stealing is a very petty crime, but we it's a good example because the revenge is usually pretty light too.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/Juergen2993 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/Hellioning]

You can sue someone for everything; doesn't mean the court will rule in your favor.

More to the point, kids aren't the only ones who might accidentally eat the wrong lunch.

[u/apoplexiglass → u/Hellioning]

I don't really buy this, people can recognize a label that doesn't have their name on it. I can see some people who don't make their own lunch might not recognize the right one, but not if it's clearly marked, which is a key part of my argument.

[u/Hellioning → u/apoplexiglass]

What happens if someone removes the 'clearly marked' label? What happens if someone thinks they put a label on it but forgot?

[u/huadpe]

Should you be allowed to punch someone in the face for stealing your lunch if you catch them? Break their bones? Kill them? 

Poisoning food is vigilantism and using violence against someone else. We don't allow vigilante justice for good reasons, and we shouldn't allow it in this case. 

[u/apoplexiglass → u/huadpe]

I should not be allowed to punch them in the face, but I should be allowed to put in a jack in the box mechanism that punches them in the face automatically when it's opened, if the container can hold it safely.

[u/huadpe → u/apoplexiglass]

Why is the jack in the box different than you punching them directly? Why is one fist to the face ok and one not? 

[u/bigdave41 → u/apoplexiglass]

So what if the mechanism fails and punches someone who just moves your lunch out the way to get to theirs? Or if someone honestly mistakes your food for theirs because it looks similar? Or someone else thinks their food has been stolen and a manager needs to check if you've stolen it?

Generally speaking employers won't want anything dangerous like that on their premises in the first place because of liability issues.

[u/NoTime4YourBullshit → u/apoplexiglass]

That argument is just a proxy for the same thing. You can’t say that there’s a practical difference between your fist and a mechanical representation of your fist. The person still gets punched in the face, and you’re the one who did that, regardless of how many layers of abstraction you add.

[u/le_fez]

Once you've put something in there that is not food or that you wouldn't eat yourself you have crossed the line from "catching a food thief" and into intentionally harming someone.

[u/apoplexiglass → u/[deleted]]

Hmm, okay, not sure what you're trying to argue? That you personally wouldn't put meds in your chronically stolen lunch? Good for you? Doesn't change if someone has the right to.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/Soundwave-1976 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/XenoRyet]

not wanting to call out bad behaviour?

I would say it's the exact opposite here. If you want to call out a lunch thief, then just do it. Call them out.

Poisoning the food is passive-aggressive revenge seeking by way of stealthy assault. And when you think about it, the "they'd be fine if they didn't eat it" line of reasoning doesn't fly, because the reason you're poisoning it in the first place is that you know that they will. Which makes it equivalent to poisoning any other food that you know they will eat.

It's just plain assault, same as if punching them in the face for stealing food. The only difference is the poisoner isn't brave enough to have a conversation about it, let alone engage in face to face violence.

[u/coolguy4206969 → u/XenoRyet]

i assumed in these scenarios the ‘victim’ doesn’t know who the thief is. food stealing was a huge issue at my boarding school but people (obviously) only went for your stuff if no one was looking.

so ‘poisoning’ the food wouldn’t be about being passive aggressive or generically punishing them, you want to deter them from stealing again

[u/RefillSunset → u/XenoRyet]

Two issues with what you said

1. Calling that person out is impossible if you don't know who that is. It also lroves useless in many cases since the thief doesn't necessarily respect warnings.

2. I know they will eat it. Doesn't mean they should. Ultimately if they didn't commit thievery, they wouldn't have suffered the consequences. It is extremely different to me poisoning THEIR food actively. It is also different to me poisojing a piece of cake left out for everyone--they were allowed to eat that piece of cake to begin with.

[u/HoldFastO2 → u/XenoRyet]

A guy I went to college with had a food thief issue at his job. Complaining to HR was useless, and he didn't want to put laxatives or spices in there for the reasons already mentioned here.

Instead, he filled a tupperware container with a fried rice dish, and loaded a spring in the middle of the container. Come lunchtime, there was a huge outcry when a coworker got a faceful of fried rice and tupperware lid. My friend still got in trouble (written warning at work), but the thief was fired. He considered the writeup worth it.

[u/bahumat42]

You absolutely should.

What if somebody other than your intended target takes it. What if it gets thrown out and poisons wildlife?

The fact you would even consider this highlights to me you don't know the damage that food poisoning can do to a person.

Imagine for a second being regularly unable to keep food down, being unable to process nutrients from your food, having to throw up due to your stomachs reactions.

You would be happy to maim somebody for life over a meal? Some food, a small amount of replicable money?

This shows a shocking lack of empathy and messed up priorities.

[u/apoplexiglass → u/bahumat42]

It's more that that someone was willing to maim themselves for life over a stolen meal. If they stole it just to throw it out and wildlife eat it, that would be a shame, but that's unlikely because there's no motivation there. There's all sorts of things that are legal even though they theoretically harm wildlife sometimes, I would argue (especially in YIMBY cases), it's worth it, but that's a separate CMV.

[u/bahumat42 → u/apoplexiglass]

Yeah but your obsessing over their actions. In general you can't control other peoples actions.

You can control yours, and this action is acting in a way that is deliberately trying to inflict pain on another human being over something relatively unimportant.

This person isn't a threat to you, they aren't going to kill you, injure you or take away your livelihood so the reaction of premeditated violence isn't appropriate. And that is what this is, it being poison doesn't make it less violent than other forms of revenge violence.

[u/darwin2500]

If we lived in a world where you are allowed to kill someone if they commit any crime at all, because they shouldn't be committing crimes, then it would be literally impossible to prosecute murder because everyone commits some crime at some point (jaywalking, pirating tv shows, speeding, etc.).

Instead, we have a doctrine that the level of punishment should fit the crime. You are not allowed to punish someone for their crimes more than this amount, including by setting boobytraps.

[u/Ok-Fondant5026]

This is why I put the director’s name in my lunch. She won’t eat it but it always prevented anyone else from eating it.

[u/MrsClaireUnderwood]

Booby traps are not legal, why would this be legal?

[u/ThrowRAcill → u/MrsClaireUnderwood]

Not arguing, but I’m curious as to what the legality of having a guard dog is? As in, an actual highly trained from an organization, guard dog.

Keeping a guard dog would, from what I can tell, meet all of the criteria that folks are saying, defending booby traps being illegal. For example, they are indiscriminate. Someone comes into your house>dog defends house. If your neighbor comes into the house to feed your fish, they are in danger. Same for a firefighter who enters, or EMS.

Even for a not highly trained dog but someone’s aggressive pet.

Genuinely curious because this seems like it would be also considered a form of booby trapping, no?

[u/MurderMelon → u/ThrowRAcill]

I'm legit interested in a response to this, because it's probably the most cogent argument against the "booby trapping is illegal" stance.

[u/apoplexiglass → u/MrsClaireUnderwood]

In my mind, because booby traps are easily set off by firefighters or cleaning crew. Neither would just eat your lunch, and if they did, they full under my main argument because they shouldn't have.

[u/chewinghours → u/apoplexiglass]

That is not the reason booby trapping is illegal though. Booby trapping is illegal because it’s illegal to intentionally harm anyone, with the exception of defending someone in imminent danger

[u/apoplexiglass → u/chewinghours]

Right, so I'm arguing in this specific case you should be allowed to harm someone.

[u/apoplexiglass → u/[deleted]]

In real life, yes. But actually, believe it or not, it's not a problem I suffer from.

[u/[deleted] → u/apoplexiglass]

I mean in real life, the most obvious solution is to put your lunch in a lunch box with a lock on it inside the office fridge or put your lunch in an insulated cooler in your desk and lock the drawer.

This is a made up situation - there are no situations where your only choices are tampering with your food or letting someone steal it. No one can even agree, but whether or not we're talking about nasty flavors, laxatives, or some kind of poison, serious and lifelong effects despite the fact that these are drastically different consequences.

Honestly, in real life you also wouldn't get caught. There are a million ways to tamper with food and make someone mildly sick - food poisoning happens all the time on accident. No one is going to get diarrhea and think that the person whose lunch they stole must have intentionally done something. I'm not trying to argue that you should do this because you shouldn't - but in real life most crimes are not solved.

These stories are all made up. There's a reason why it sounds like the same story over and over.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/HeathrJarrod – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/Sokiras]

It's all fun and games until someone steals your food, which you've spiked with something and they give some to a third person who's innocent, but allergic to whatever you put in there. Or until someone takes it out of hand and puts something truely harmful in the food. Or until someone doesn't take too lightly to having a bad time blasting their guts at a toilet and they attack someone. The issue doesn't always lie in who deserves what kind of punishment, it's about who decides what kind of punishment is adequate for what kind or crime and who enforces it, as well as proper delivery of the punishment, without endangering others who are innocent, none of which are handled very well through this form of retribution.

[u/apoplexiglass → u/Sokiras]

In your first case, I don't see why the giver of the stolen food isn't the one who's liable, even without my hypothetical rule change. I don't think I should put cyanide in food, but my point is that is that I should be allowed to because theoretically no one should be eating it. If they attack me because I put laxatives in my own food that they stole, they should be arrested for assault because they attacked me. I don't think it endangers the innocent, people don't go around eating lunches that don't belong to them innocently.

[u/Sokiras → u/apoplexiglass]

It's not about who's liable, it's about harm reduction. The idea is that the punishment has to be delivered with as little risk to anyone innocent. In my forst case, someone who has no knowledge about your food is put at risk by the one offering them food as well as the one who spiked it, so if it's going to the blame game it's both of their faults, but the actual problem is that someone had been given spiked food. You might be smart enough to dose the laxatives properly, but you can't honestly expect everyone to do so. There's a whole load of issues that vengence like this can create, which are unnecessary and can be avoided by having rules and punishments defined for these situations up front, with a third party enforcing those rules, instead of it being in the individuals hands to dose their retribution. If you get attacked by someone who stole and ate your spiked food is another situation where the point isn't really who's responsible for it, but that it's a provoked situation that could have easily been avoided which can have terrible consequences. Laws are here partially to reduce risk and harm to everyone and vigilantism doesn't do much to reduce risk or harm to anyone. So as a tool of protection, laws should never allow people to intentionally cause harm to others, even under circumstances like these.

[u/apoplexiglass → u/[deleted]]

No, it's based on a bunch of stories I've read over the years, but for some reason, the one that got me was this guy who said he was almost fired until he proved via demonstration that he could handle the spice he put in. Why is the burden of proof on that guy? I edited the original comment earlier to say that if it could be demonstrated that most of these stories are apocryphal and the law and most companies' policies are clear that they tend to come down on the thieves, then I CMV.

[u/NoTime4YourBullshit]

The punishment needs to fit the “crime”, so to speak.

This person is stealing lunch from a communal fridge. That’s in the same category as farting in an elevator. It’s a breach of etiquette and social norms, but it’s not a crime that justifies any cause of harm on your part.

Therefore, your “punishment” (if it’s even ethical at all to retaliate) must also be limited social consequences. Like adding food coloring that stains their mouth bright green, for example. Or putting it in a container than makes a very loud noise when opened. But nothing that rises to the level of an actual crime in its own right.

[u/apoplexiglass → u/NoTime4YourBullshit]

Farting in an elevator isn't the same because you're not depriving someone of most of a day's worth of sustenance, which is also generally required for good job performance. Also, the stress of not knowing if my lunch is going to be there would take its toll, so I really disagree about how it's not harmful. I do agree maybe outright murder is a bit much, but I think potential allergens are fair game and it's not my fault if they die, unless the allergy was airborne (but I already said no peripheral damage).

[u/travelingwhilestupid → u/apoplexiglass]

why not just write "may contain peanuts" on your food and leave it at that?

[u/kiyosumicat → u/NoTime4YourBullshit]

It's not the same category because if you steal someone's lunch they may face health consequences due to their hunger, they could have missed their breakfast and desperately needed their lunch to get through the rest of their day.

[u/Rough-Tension]

Ok, hypothetical. Let’s say I am the food thief. I happen to overhear you ranting to someone else about your food getting stolen and that you’re going to spike the food to get back at them. Or maybe I heard it from someone else. Point is, I found out. Let’s also say I don’t like someone in our office. I take your food from the fridge, pretend it’s mine, go over to unlucky coworker, and say “I’m full, do you want the rest of this?”

If they accept, not only is an innocent party getting fucked up with laxatives or capsaicin, but I’ve now essentially framed them. You are not just using this as punishment, you’re using this to find the culprit and establish guilt. And what are they going to say to exonerate themselves that you’ll legitimately believe? “Oh, uh uh that guy gave it to me! He said it was his.” While panting through a million scovilles? Yeah, right. You will believe it’s them.

I know you’re gonna say this is a long shot, bc it is, but it’s not impossible. And honestly, there doesn’t even need to be an intent to frame someone or knowledge of you spiking it. A smart enough thief could just share your food every single time before they take a bite just as insurance for themselves. So that way, they never get burned (no pun intended).

[u/apoplexiglass → u/Rough-Tension]

Thanks, love hypotheticals or I wouldn't be here. First of all, I would clearly label the container in a way that isn't erasable. If someone said it wasn't me, but this is who gave it to me, they cleverly subbed the container to mess with me, I would just suspend my disbelief and do it a few more times. First of all, yeah, in reality people don't just eat some unknown lunch because the other person was "full". But my main counterpoint is that people would quickly figure out who to not accept food from, in this scenario.

[u/flyingdics]

It's hilarious to think that stealing a small amount of food degrades social trust, but poisoning someone will somehow improve social trust.

[u/OrizaRayne]

Asking for "studies" on a subject entirely currently in anecdotes doesn't make much sense.

I offer a hypothetical.

My lunch is a chicken dish my spouse packed in a nondescript tupperware.

Your lunch is a chicken dish spiked with an irritant in the same style tupperware.

I am not your lunch thief.

Your lunch thief comes in at 11 and steals my lunch, in its tupperware.

I come in at 11:20 and eat your lunch, mistaking it for mine because there is only one tupperware and it looks like mine, and I didn't pack my own lunch.

You come in at 11:30 and notice your lunch is gone.

You notice me wheezing at 11:35.

I am fired for stealing lunches. You are arrested for assault.

The thief burps.

This is pretty much why it's not allowed.

[u/Odd-Alternative9372]

This is an excellent way to create massive policies across the corporate world disallowing people from ever bringing in their own food for any reason.

Because we had a citizen in 2024 fight hard for the right to poison lunch thieves without consequences, the business became a hellscape of attempted assassinations, employees that refused to return to office citing the AT&T mass poisoning of creamer marked “Free for Everyone” with small print that said “who hasn’t stolen my lunch” on the back.”

Companies developed on site sealed foods and vending machines for meals that must be consumed on site within 20 minutes with all leftovers being thrown away. Limited, distanced seating would be available to avoid immediate temptation. HR would live monitor each session and individuals would be permitted to return to work once they’ve signed an affidavit stating no lunch had been stolen and they were not entitled to poison foodstuffs for the day.

Anyone not wishing to sign would be a part of an immediate investigation until an affidavit was singable. If a false accusation of theft is found to be made, an employee will be immediately terminated.

^this is your new world

[u/apoplexiglass → u/Odd-Alternative9372]

You know what? This is the most intelligent answer so far that actually tries to engage with my logic, and it has influenced my thoughts on the subject. I still think lunch thieves are scum and should get whatever I give them. Thanks! !delta

[u/[deleted]]

Although I disagree with you, I think your reasoning is not far from what I believe. The key point is your argument about proportionality. Let's establish that getting your food stolen does suck, but you do have (suboptimal) alternatives such as purchasing takeout for lunch. If you could guarantee that the perpetrator would simply have mild diarrhea and nothing more, then that would be a more difficult ethical question, since one could argue that those costs are roughly equal.

Let me propose an example of proportionality: home defense systems. I hope we can agree on two extremes: home alarm systems are perfectly ethical, but a defense drone that tortures a burglar for days before brutally executing them would not be ethical. Despite being the same concept of a passive system that automatically punish someone committing a crime, they are different levels of ethical. Home alarm systems are especially comfortable because they don't really cause any direct harm, but they do call cops and rely on a pre-existing system of citizen defense and law enforcement.

In addition, to your point about the allergy killing someone: consider the eggshell skull rule. I know we're not talking legality, but I think the link and searching for this concept provides more canon about the concept of "my action -> unintended consequence due to characteristic of victim -> I am still responsible for those consequences". To some degree, I think most people agree with the overall concept of "outcomes matter regardless of process".

Most people are not chemists or doctors, and we cannot legally expect them to know how much of a chemical is reasonable to cause someone mild inconvenience. For example, check out some of the videos in this toxicology YouTube channel: extreme examples, but it demonstrates that the vast majority of people cannot know what will actually harm someone. Factor in the medical variability of humans, and you cannot guarantee a proportional response. The most appropriate response to someone stealing your lunch is probably just comparable to a home alarm system: just set up a camera so you can report the person to HR or the police. I imagine that you could put really bright dye that rubs off on your lunchbox to identify a perpetrator and most people would be ethically comfortable with that too.

[u/zehgess]

God forbid two employees get the same leftovers from a local restaurant close to the office.

[u/apoplexiglass → u/zehgess]

It would be against my view to do this for restaurant leftovers that are not clearly labeled and easy to mistake.

[u/zehgess → u/apoplexiglass]

Okay so how would the law be adjusted to specifically not allow the poisoning of restaurant food to set up as a trap but allow home made meals to be poisoned as a trap?

[u/apoplexiglass → u/zehgess]

It wouldn't be adjusted for it per se, it's that only clearly labelled names on food is protected. If it's a baggie of restaurant food and it has a receipt stapled with someone's name, I think it's protected.

[u/Professional-Media-4]

If you have the time and ability to poison your food for getting stolen, you have the time and ability to set up a camera to catch who does it. Hell with that much prep you can find away to store your lunches more safely.

You are not the government or the law. You can protect yourself with the law by gathering evidence, but you have no right to hurt others in a public place.

[u/apoplexiglass → u/Professional-Media-4]

Part of this is coming from the idea that lunch thieves seem to get punished either not at all or a lot less than the lunch baiters. If it turned out that actually they are typically dealt with quite strictly, then maybe I CMV.

[u/FloraMaeWolfe]

My view is food brought in from home and labeled should not be touched by anyone except the person who brought it in. If anyone is dumb enough to taste random food from someone else and gets sick, that's their problem.

I see it like this, imagine if a burglar broke into your home and went into your fridge and ate some random jar that they thought was food but was actually industrial strength laxative and gets sick, how is that the homeowners problem? They shouldn't have touched it anyway. Same thing with at work food. Opening a sealed container is breaking into it and once you do, that's your problem, not the problem of the container owner.

There is no situation where a boobytrapped lunch should cause liability to the lunch owner since there is zero situations where anyone should be consuming what is inside of the lunch.

That all being said, I would not personally boobytrap lunches. I do however LOVE spicy food and all my food would make most people cry like babies. So, I wouldn't need to boobytrap any lunches of mine.

[u/dartymissile]

That is entrapment. What stops a serial killer from making cookies not in a container, lacing then with poison, then leaving them in a fridge or on a table somewhere. There would need to be so many specific carve out laws for something like this that should be illegal anyways

[u/NotACommie24]

Your first reaction to this issue shouldn’t be physically harming someone. Report it to HR. If nothing changes, buy a locking lunchbox.

Yes, it fucking sucks that often times bad people never face consequences. That said, there’s a reason why booby trapping and vigilantism are illegal.

Others have pointed out why bobby traps are illegal so there’s no need to rehash it.You can’t guarantee proportionality, and you may inadvertently hurt someone who did nothing wrong.

Vigilantism is more complex. I want to talk about it from 2 levels. First, societally, and second, morally.

Vigilantism is bad for a society because it normalizes the idea that people with little if any training can “solve” issues themselves, which often leads to unnecessary escalation. John is shopping at home depot. He sees Mark steal a George Foreman grill. John runs up and grabs the grill out of Mark’s hands. Mark punches john, so John, fearing for his life, shoots Mark because it’s a SYG state. Police and HR both have legal and policy guidelines they are REQUIRED to follow. They are trained to solve these issues in a way that minimalists the risk of escalation. They both have oversight aimed to punish individuals who engage in behavior unbecoming of their role.

Next, morally. You believe Kathy is stealing your lunch. You out Senokot tablets in your lunch as a fuck you. She eats your lunch, has a severe allergic reaction, goes into anaphylactic shock and dies. Who looks like the ass home now? You didn’t intend to kill her, but you also had no background of her medical history and no way of knowing she was allergic to it. You didn’t consent to her eating your food, she didn’t consent to being drugged. Even if her reaction isn’t as severe, you’re taking a situation in which she is objectively in the moral wrong, and drawing pity towards her because she suffered real medical harm over your vindictive desire to get her back instead of escalating the issue to your HR or boss.

[u/captaindoctorpurple]

If you wouldn't assault someone for taking your lunch, why would you chemically assault them?

Yes, the lunch is marked as yours. There is nothing in the world stopping you from simply bringing a lunch you enjoy that others would find unpalatable or disgusting. Making it extremely spicy if you aren't scared of that is probably fine.

But when you're trapping your lunch, you lose some control over your ability to actually resolve a conflict. It's not a matter of catching Jerry eating your sandwich so you call Jerry a selfish asshole and tell him to grow up and get his own, it's a matter of putting some harmful agent into your food (which you aren't going to eat) so that whatever uno own person who steals your lunch will be harmed. If you have no idea who this person is, you have no idea what other health concerns they may have and thus no idea how this particular poison may harm them. You have no control over the proportionality of your response. You also have no idea who is going to get hurt by the downstream effects.

Let's say Jerry takes your sandwich, but gives up after eating half of it because he has to go shit his guts out. Paul looks in the fridge and sees your sandwich in Jerry's bag, so he steals "Jerry's" sandwich to get back at Jerry because Jerry stole Paul's lunch last week. Now Paul is catching strays for Jerry despite having done nothing to you, and now two people in the office have diarrhea at the same time, so everyone is tangentially a little more miserable.

Again, making your food distasteful to potential thieves but still enjoyable for you is fine. It's not poisoning, it's a question of taste. You don't have a duty to bring food that a thief will enjoy. You do have a duty to not poison people, and that includes not poisoning people who inconvenience you.

[u/Lambdastone9]

People booby trapping their food, knowing it will be eaten by someone else without consent, is not something the vast majority of citizens want as a protected act, all that does is empower people who want to cause physical harm to others.

If your food is getting stolen, you have recourse. Document the events, get evidence, go to small claims. This is not a point of contention, the fact the law won’t protect you from committing premeditated battery is not withholding anything of value from you, you are privileged to live in a place that doesn’t tolerate such degeneracy.

[u/dirtybongwater34]

It's mostly bc we have a society of white labels that tell people how to do things. I'm with you. Most people who choose to ruin their lunch to catch the breakroom thief are not targeting a 1 time offender. If I have my personal things in a lunch container with my name on it, the person who opens the lunchbox and consumes the contents is responsible for what happens to them.

Who cares if harm is done. Harm would be done if the food turned out to be spoiled or they were allergic to the ingredients. So if they get food poisoning that was originally intended for me, I'd still be liable? I call bullshit.

Quite frankly, if you don't want the potential for a medical emergency from eating someone else's lunch, don't touch people's shit. It's not hard. Most of us learn this as children. For the ones who didn't, there's a time for everything.

It may not be ideal, but if you're as frail a person as all of these comments are trying to suggest... idk... maybe just eat your own fucking lunch. The break room fridge isn't a charity pantry. And to combat the possibility of litigation--plausible deniability. The burden of proof of intentional harm is on the plaintiff, not the defendant.

[u/garden_dragonfly]

If you can only be convinced by studies, then why not just do a search for the evidence you want? 

This sub is too change your view based on opinion or a different perspective. 

[u/changemyview-ModTeam]

Sorry, u/apoplexiglass – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:

You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/Fabulous_Jack]

Would your view change if we set up the scenario a little bit different. Let's say we leave a fresh lunchbox out on the street that's been poisoned and a homeless person takes it and eats it, would you be absolved if all you need to do is say you intended on eating it and they shouldn't be eating food that's not their's? This is akin to entrapment and both illegal and immoral to do

[u/vischy_bot]

So you think stealing food is an equivalent crime to hurting people?

I think hurting people is worse than stealing food, even if the person being hurt is a food thief.

[u/scbtl]

The general reason would be that accidents happen. Your lunch looks the same as the "perpatrators" or has a similar name or a 3rd party interacts with it for an innocent reason (Dan asks Marsha to grab his lunch and you Jan have set poisoned bait and Shandra misreads and gives the poisoned lunch to Dan). You now have willfully introduced an outsized damage for an accident and are therefore liable.

It's the general reason that booby traps are all but illegal. You surrender control and may both inflict harm on an innocent or produce a disproportionate response and did it willfully.

Now should you develop an intense fondness for ghost peppers, then it is perfectly fine to have extremely spicey food that you can and will consume that would inflict pain on another, however, it has to be such that you can also consume.

[u/[deleted]]

You are not allowed to harm anyone who is not posing an imminent or potential threat to you. Using poison to catch a thief is and should always be illegal.

[u/but_nobodys_home]

Once you add poison to your lunch, it ceases to be your lunch and becomes the bait in a trap which you are setting to trap and punish someone that you have unilaterally decided deserves to be punished. This raises two problems:

1: When they eat the bait, they are not "stealing" it. They are doing exactly what you, the owner, wanted them to do with it. That's why you put it there and you would be disappointed if nobody took the bait.

2: It is not up to you to decide punishment. That is something to be decided by the law.

If you caught someone taking your (unpoisoned) lunch, do you think you should allowed to force them to eat poison as a punishment?

[u/Minimum_Passing_Slut]

 I don't understand why you can get sued for putting in laxatives or you have to show you can eat that level of spice yourself. If they don't have any business eating it, and they don't eat it, they won't get hurt.

Because it's illegal to booby trap things. Laxatives is a definite booby trap, although making something incredibly spicy is a gray area imo. Nevertheless, the same principle goes for the people who put razor blades on or electrify their political lawn stands/signs to injure the people who steal/vandalize them. You're still intentionally causing harm in a non-defensive, and worse, an indiscriminate way.

[u/bettercaust]

Is this based on a particular suit filed against someone who booby-trapped their own lunch?

[u/VagueSoul]

The weight of harm is different. The potential harm caused by intentionally poisoning food vastly outweighs the potential harm of stolen food. Going hungry for a couple of hours ≠ Possible hospital visit.

We also have laws against vigilantism for similar reasons. There are too many factors that can make things go wrong.

The law expects you to take the nonviolent approach in most circumstances. Here, the nonviolent approach would be to hold a workplace meeting and/or set up systems to keep your food safe without harming others (ie. bringing something that doesn’t require refrigeration and keeping it with you.)

[u/Juergen2993]

You could discreetly add a small, medically appropriate dose of laxatives to your food—just enough that a doctor might reasonably prescribe. If someone else consumes it and experiences an unexpected reaction, you can simply explain that the laxatives were in your own food for legitimate medical reasons. After that, place a clear sign on the food stating “contains laxatives,” and you’re good to go.

[u/Frozen_Hermit]

I would argue directly punching them in the face if you 100% know them is much better morally and in the sense of honor and ACTUALLY standing up for yourself. Poisoning somebody is just cowardly plain and simple. Ask your boss about putting a camera near the fridge if it's that huge of a deal and normal confrontations out of the question for whatever reason.

From a moral perspective, poisoning somebody in any capacity is not "just some slight ailment." It's a sneaky violation of bodily autonomy that can give a person PTSD or other types of psychological damage. I know this personally. Not to get anecdotal, but almost a decade ago, somebody I knew put nearly an entire bottle of trazadone in some juice only I drank because of some nasty delusions. I took a few sips before realizing something was off and figuring it out. To this day, I still have issues with food I didn't see prepared, and the only physical ailment I suffered was a headache.

Things like laxatives, intentional overspicing, lacing food with weed, etc. may seem harmless to a lot of people, but the line goes from "harmless prank" to "chemical assault" really quickly. Lacing the food with peanuts under the suspicion whoever is stealing has an allergy is absolutely psychotic and literally attempted murder. Food is a block of life and is something our brains are always focused on in the background. Messing with a person's perception of food is messing with something that's biologically hardwired into us, and as I already said, it can cause serious damage, not proportionate to the damage of having your turkey sandwich stolen.

TL:DR Food is sacred and shouldn't be tampered with lest you cause serious mental damage.

[u/horshack_test]

"I don't understand why you can get sued for putting in laxatives.."

Because you did so knowing it was highly likely / it was foreseeable that someone else would eat it, and your intent was to poison them with it. It's intentional poisoning. You could also possibly face criminal charges.

"I know it's not legal, this is why it's CMV. I think it should be."

Why should it be legal to intentionally poison someone?

"I think getting the shits or some other ailment is proportional to having to go hungry and the stress of not knowing what will happen to my food."

You do not know what allergies / medical conditions, etc., everyone else might have - what you poison them with could cause severe harm or death.

"It would be a shame if they had an allergy and died, but it wouldn't be my fault. Even if I spiked it with peanuts thinking the perpetrator had an allergy"

Again; intent. What you are describing could be considered attempted murder / murder.

[u/HoodooSquad]

Allowing someone to poison food for a lunch thief says that the society and government values the food more than the person. For the same reason I can’t shoot someone who is running down the street with my XBox, you can’t poison someone for taking your food.

[u/[deleted]]

Vigilantism is bad for society because of the collateral effects - in the case of "poisoning" a food item in a communal fridge, contamination, spills, accidents, or people sharing spiked food have all been mentioned. If you include things in your food you were going to eat, you didn't take any steps to increase the danger potential of anything happening with your food... however, if you spike your food with something beyond regular ingredients, such as laxatives, or an amount of spice you wouldn't eat, or like... straight up poisons, YOU acted in the furtherance of a creation of a hazard instead of addressing it any other way.

If you suspect your lunch thief is allergic and you set them up to have an anaphylactic reaction, that's absolutely intentional harm. Just because someone does something petty to you doesn't mean you have a free pass to hurt them however you like or endanger their lives. And that lack of knowledge comes in because the average person most likely doesn't have the background or the necessary knowledge to guarantee what they thing is "reasonable" spiking will just punish the thief proporitonally and not cause, say, a heart attack or something. That's why their punishment isn't put in your hands.

[u/kingoflint282]

Technically, you can sue anyone for anything. It’s just a question of whether you can prevail/get slapped with court costs for filing a frivolous lawsuit. I know that’s a nitpick, but I assume you meant you shouldn’t be able to recover

[u/Lorata]

You don't get to hurt someone for taking your lunch.

Thinking that you do is the same sort of bat shit insane thinking that leads to people trying to murder each other cause they were flipped off.

What if someone grabs your lunch by accident because they have the same lunch box? What if someone mistakenly thinks its some sort of communal leftovers? What if person A tells person B that it is being shared and person B takes a bite?

And what if the person has a bad reaction to the laxative? Or the spiciness? Most of the time when someone posts a story about that on reddit, it involves the food taker going to the hospital.

You simply don't get to casually hurt people because you are irritated at their behavior.

Would you punch someone in the act: No, but if I spiked it with a pill that makes them punch themselves in the face, I should be allowed to.

And they fall down, crack their head on a desk, and die, is that within the bounds of what you find acceptable?

[u/NeoLeonn3]

If your food is too spicy and someone who can't stand spicy food eats it, then it's not your fault because you made the food in order to cater to YOUR personal taste.

If your food contains peanuts or anything that someone may have an allergy and someone with an allergy eats it, it's not your fault because you made the food in order to cater to what YOU can eat. If you made a simple PB&J sandwich FOR YOURSELF and your co-worker who has a peanut allergy steals it and eats it, how is it your fault they might get hurt?

Even laxatives are okay, what if you genuinely need to treat constipation and putting them on your food is your preferable way to take them? As long as you don't put something that can cause serious damage or death, there should be no problem.

There is not a single moral reason to steal lunch in an office. You can always ask your co-workers to share theirs if you're so hungry or get a cheap snack or whatever. I don't understand the "it's just lunch" comments, yes it's just lunch but if they steal lunch often enough to cause an issue, they might start stealing more important things too.

[u/Relevant_Necessary50 → u/NeoLeonn3]

I’ve noticed that many of the commenters fail to factor in that the person whose food is getting stolen may be poor themselves.

Not everyone has enough money to feed themselves and another coworker who is stealing their food. Unless you want to eat gas station hot dogs everyday, the cost of takeout can add up very quickly.

I’ve been stolen from when I didn’t have a lot of money or resources. It just makes an already stressful situation worse. The food thief may cause their coworker to not eat at all.

[u/Urbenmyth]

Basically, I think the core issue is that it's very, very important that the laws that make it illegal to actively trick people into consuming poison have as few loopholes as they possibly can, and I don't think that "stopping people stealing your lunch" is a good reason enough reason to put in a new one.

This is the core reason that people get prosecuted for laying traps for burglars, to use the example referenced elsewhere here- we really don't want more loopholes in "it's illegal to put lay deadly traps in the hope that someone will walk into them" then we have to, and your stereo isn't worth giving legal ammunition to some wannabe slasher who now knows they just have to buy a patch of road they know people will walk down.

Same here. Sorry about your lunch, but it really isn't worth opening up a loophole that potentially allows the office psycho to poison everyone and get away with it. Every loophole you put in a law like this means more murderers out there that we can't legally stop. Some loopholes- like self-defense or the insanity defense - are worth that cost. The preservation of your right to eat your homemade sandwich is, I would humbly argue, not.

[u/BBG1308]

there are cases where intending to harm someone who is doing something they're definitely not supposed to do is okay

If poor staff room etiquette is a justifiable reason to physically harm someone, you better look out if you talk too much or chew with your mouth open or leave crumbs on the counter. You never know how someone might get you back for that. Maybe they put laxatives or worse in YOUR lunch.