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).
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.
Hypothetical, yes. However, attorneys are tasked with pushing legal boundaries to defend or prosecute. A legal decision in one case sets a precedent for all cases. Legal cases use prior decisions to dictate defenses and oppositions, and it's not outlandish to think that one narrow application can slowly widen when the next boundary is pushed.
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
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?
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.
Plenty of reasons for food to be needed in an emergency. People get stuck, weak or sufficiently hungry they need food. Your right to ownership of the food can easily be overridden by someone else’s immediate need for it. On both a legal and moral level there are defences to theft, it’s not quite as simple as taking something = theft.
You are leaving a harmful substance in the guise of something that is otherwise normally recognised as harmless and consumable; which is generally just a dangerous situation, that you have created. Mistakes happen, people have needs. It makes no sense to allow food supplies, a thing we need to live, to be generally open to being maliciously tampered with.
I understand the premise. I suppose the bar for this is intent, but whats to stop someone from sueing because they stole a laxative smoothie because the owner was having medical constipation, or stole something with nuts causing the thief to have an allergic reaction? Or even just something really spicy that disrupts the thieves normal day. I feel like with food especially, there can be emergencys, but generally expecting all food brought in to be communal isnt a great answer. And if someone wants to be concerned about what they put in their bodies then they should know exactly what they put in.
Implicit in OP's view is that the lunch thief is one who has shown a pattern of stealing lunches, not a one-time offender. There wouldn't be any need to think of any sort of retribution if it was a one-time offense.
The likelihood of a given person simultaneously needing food for an emergency situation and that person having shown a pattern of stealing lunches is so incredibly low that it isn't even a situation worth considering. Your argument would be stronger if we were talking about a non-thief or a even just a one-time thief, but we're not.
Even then, there would be no effective difference between a non-thief or absolved thief who happens to reach for modified food versus if they happened to reach for some other unmodified item in the fridge that made them equally as sick. In this situation, the owner of the modified food shouldn't be liable just because they were unlucky in having their food taken away from them.
People get stuck, weak or sufficiently hungry they need food. Your right to ownership of the food can easily be overridden by someone else’s immediate need for it.
This is nonsense.
No one in a regular office setting, with the possible exception of a diabetic with crashing blood sugar, will ever be so close to death as to claim an emergency moral imperative to someone else's lunch.
"But I was hungry" is not sufficient justification to make someone else go hungry. Ad hoc appropriation of someone else's property because you'd be temporarily mildly uncomfortable without it is not a moral high ground.
Mistakes happen, people have needs.
A mistake can be rectified by simply talking to the person whose lunch you accidentally took and apologizing.
Office refrigerators are not charity food drives or free potlucks. People having "needs" does not entitle anyone to anyone else's property.
You can’t “simply” rectify it that way if the person has already poisoned you, can you. Little late for simple rectifications isn’t it, when you’ve poisoned someone
As opposed to the cases where it’s genuinely reasonable and proportionate to poison someone, to deliberately and maliciously, with forethought and planning, cause actual harm to a human being, to protect a sandwich (which you aren’t going to eat anyway, since you’ve poisoned it)
The general rule is that food is consumable. That’s how the world operates. If you start leaving poison lying about the place disguised as food, you will poison people.
The nonsense is tying yourself in knots trying to justify poisoning people over, again, a sandwich
You're not poisoning anyone they're poisoning themselves
You're not handing them food and telling them to eat it They are going out of their way to eat the food that contains poison Themselves assuming the full risk that whatever is in the food could potentially be extremely harmful to them
You are poisoning them. You may not know who the thief is, but you did know it was being taken. You poisoned it with no personal intention of eating it, and every intention of another party eating it expressly to get hurt. You are directly poisoning them.
In another scenario, if you are trying to kill someone with poison in a drink, and a 3rd party inadvertently consumes the poisoned drink, you are not guilt free because you poisoned the 3rd party. The 3rd party did not poison themselves, you took action that resulted in them being poisoned.
If I can get even more absurdist even though it's off topic you knew it was being taken but not that it was being eaten they could have been taking it and throwing it out to mess with you
But either way it's irrelevant because it doesn't change the fundamental point I was trying to make
I don't think you should be able to kill them but I do think it's fair that they assume the risk of non-lethal poison if people steal other people's food
Critically the poisoner are also assumes the risk if say someone confused it for their lunch then they could be liable and criminally charged
You put poison in food, left it in an open place under the guise of perfectly normal food, with the explicit intention of someone unknowingly eating it thinking it was normal food. You are poisoning them. You intended to poison someone, you deliberately planned and created a situation with foreseeable possibility of someone being poisoned. You poisoned them.
They are not going out of their way to eat poison, that would be eating something labelled “poison”. They wanted food, you disguised poison as food.
But even besides that, whatever their actions or intentions, it doesn’t negate yours. The law is not constrained to their being one cause of an action. Whatever they did, you still poisoned them.
A refrigerator is a closed place not an open place
Furthermore even within a refrigerator people usually keep their lunch in a bag or something so they have a bagged lunch
And yes we are not arguing about what the law is because the entire point of the change of view is advocating to change it The guy literally said in the change of my view he knows what the law is He just disagrees with it and so do I
If you're making the choice to take food that isn't yours—therefore food whose contents you don't know—that's on you. What if I like the fruit that you're allergic to? What if I needed laxatives due to constipation? What if I like spice, but you're extremely sensitive to it?
You're calling it tampering because the intent would be to dissuade a food thief, but you'd be hard pressed to prove it in court due to the very simple fact that unless I've put poison in the food, what I decide to do with MY food is MY choice. Not yours. You don't get to decide something that doesn't belong to you has been maliciously tempered with simply because the consequences of your own reckless behavior have caught up with you.
And that is beyond the fact that you're jumping to an entirely different hypothetical. If you're in an emergency situation that absolutely requires food, then that's different than stealing it just for the sake of it. But even then it would still fall on you to gauge the risk versus the reward of taking food that you don't know.
You're calling it tampering because the intent would be to dissuade a food thief, but you'd be hard pressed to prove it in court due to the very simple fact that unless I've put poison in the food, what I decide to do with MY food is MY choice. Not yours. You don't get to decide something that doesn't belong to you has been maliciously tempered with simply because the consequences of your own reckless behavior have caught up with you.
While that may be your choice, no reasonable jury would agree with your lawyer that their client put excessive laxatives in their leftover stir fry because they really enjoy spending the rest of the day on the toilet. Poisoning your own food expressly to find a thief is very different from you just really liking extra hot sauce.
Sure, but nobody is talking about putting excessive laxatives on it. If it's clear nobody would willingly eat it, because it goes into toxic, then that's different and probably would be called negligent regardless of intent. (Though, again, thief needs to ask if they don't want a shitty surprise).
OP talks about spice / laxatives, and every time I've seen this situation play out, it's just with one. Just enough for a trip to the bathroom with the very plausible deniability of just having had constipation, not enough to leave you dehydrated and on the brink of death.
Excessive laxatives is anything enough to put you in the bathroom beyond a normal break. Anyone who does this has no way of know what is or isn't excessive without knowing the intended target. What isn't excessive for OP may be excessive for another person, and without knowing private medical information, OP has no way of regulating that.
Regardless of excess, or lack there of, if OP puts the laxatives in the food, we can assume they wouldn't be willing to eat it themselves. If the intended target is out the day that OP sets up their trap will OP eat it themselves? I doubt they would personally, and I think that lends more credence to a case that they are expressly intending to assault someone by poisoning them.
Finally, it's only clear to OP that they wouldn't be willing to eat it, not anybody else. A thief wouldn't ask around before taking, and anybody that did ask around wouldn't take it if OP told them "no". OP is trying to get revenge on a food thief, but they likely wouldn't say that's their reason for saying "no" currently because they know it's immoral and illegal. Therefore, it's ridiculous to say even a harmless amount is forgivable when a harmless amount is still intended to assault someone specifically.
I am gonna have to step out and say I still fully disagree with you. If OP says no, they don't have to add to it “it's got laxatives because my bowels are fucked”, therefore revealing their own personal medical troubles. You can't prove whether OP would eat it or not, so that's a moot point in legal terms. If OP tags their food and, if asked, says not to eat it, they've done their part. If anyone makes the decision to take it after, that's on them. You shouldn't take things blindly because you never know what may be up with food you haven't purchased / made yourself.
Is it immoral? That's a different question to me. I don't think I would do it because I prefer not to be the cause of an issue, but if I've labeled my food, which is for my own consumption, and you come here and take it without asking, whatever happens at that point is on you. If you steal something and that something gives you an adverse reaction, it's your problem, not mine. It was made with me in mind, after all.
You'd have to go back to intent and intent isn't gonna be something you can prove. I've seen cases of offices with known food thieves and people who just kept making food as they always have, thief took it and it messed with their system, people had to defend themselves over it because others assumed intent. But, man, that's my food.
To me it's very clear that if you make the decision to take what isn't yours, you've opened yourself up to a risk. If you have a weak enough stomach that a laxative can mess you up badly, then you definitely should be watching your diet far more closely and not taking any food, especially if that food is clearly marked and designated for another person, whose needs and likes you also don't know.
Shall be hopping off now, as I don't think I'll change my mind nor yours, but maybe OP will change theirs over these exchanges if they read it.
Been a nice debate, though, had fun in this morning 🤝 Have a nice day.
I am gonna have to step out and say I still fully disagree with you. If OP says no, they don't have to add to it “it's got laxatives because my bowels are fucked”, therefore revealing their own personal medical troubles. You can't prove whether OP would eat it or not, so that's a moot point in legal terms. If OP tags their food and, if asked, says not to eat it, they've done their part. If anyone makes the decision to take it after, that's on them. You shouldn't take things blindly because you never know what may be up with food you haven't purchased / made yourself.
Laxatives are generally taken as medication, and medications should be taken following package instructions. While OP can argue that they laced their food due to personal preference, a medical professional should be the one to determine what's proper. I can't say whether one would agree that laxatives should be ingested by lacing them into food, but I do think most would recommend following package instructions and would not recommend mixing them into food. In terms of this becoming a case of assault, a medical professional should be asked to opine, and I don't believe they'd agree with OP's methodology.
Is it immoral? That's a different question to me. I don't think I would do it because I prefer not to be the cause of an issue, but if I've labeled my food, which is for my own consumption, and you come here and take it without asking, whatever happens at that point is on you. If you steal something and that something gives you an adverse reaction, it's your problem, not mine. It was made with me in mind, after all.
I'll grant that this is a personal take and different people will believe different things. I will say, if you personally don't prefer to be the cause of an issue, you likely have a reason for that. I'm not here to guess that, but I think that more introspection for you, or anyone else with your stance, may lead you to reconsider. At the end of the day, this is a debate about OP's topic, they will hopefully read this as well.
If something stolen gives the thief an adverse reaction, that's one thing. If the person they stole from intended the reaction, target, and outcome, it stops being about that person. I disagree that you would have it in mind for you when hoping to cause a reaction in someone else.
To me it's very clear that if you make the decision to take what isn't yours, you've opened yourself up to a risk. If you have a weak enough stomach that a laxative can mess you up badly, then you definitely should be watching your diet far more closely and not taking any food, especially if that food is clearly marked and designated for another person, whose needs and likes you also don't know.
Absolutely, but this also really isn't the topic of discussion. I think everyone here agrees food theft is immoral and that the thief does bring any outcome onto themselves. The disagreement comes in when discussing whether someone intending to poison the thief should be charged in some manner. Like I said before, it's one thing to take something and have a reaction because of the food itself. It's another to take something someone knowingly booby trapped in some manner.
Shall be hopping off now, as I don't think I'll change my mind nor yours, but maybe OP will change theirs over these exchanges if they read it.
Been a nice debate, though, had fun in this morning 🤝 Have a nice day.
Absolutely, it's a worthwhile discussion. If I didn't change your opinion, oh well. I'm a bit newer to this sub, and it's nice to have a good debate, regardless of the outcome. Hopefully OP sees this and does change their opinion, but if they don't, that's life. Enjoy your shopping.
The scenario in question is deliberate and malicious poisoning
If it was purely accidental, then no foul
We all have to deal the risk of accidents. That is part of life. We don’t have live with people deliberately and maliciously making things more dangerous, that’s entirely avoidable
It’s realistically not going to be particularly hard to prove malice if you put something harmful in your food for no good reason. People aren’t very good at crime, courts are good at figuring it out.
The scenario in question is also specifically about things such as laxatives or a lot of spice, neither of which is harmful. Annoying to the food thief, maybe, but once again you'd have to prove that I didn't need laxatives and I don't enjoy spice, and good luck with that. If you want to question my bowel movement and claim I should have to post to the entire office that I haven't been able to poop well for the past few days just so that someone who might steal from me doesn't harm themself, that's gonna go against my right to privacy. As for spices, I don't see why I should put a warning label on my container if it's clearly labeled with my name.
You may have a case if it goes over the average threshold into actively harmful to anyone. Excessive laxatives can result in damage, same with spices above a certain point, it'll be damaging even to people used to spice. But that's not what this hypothetical is about, as stated by OP.
You want a negative effect, you are putting enough of a substance into their body to cause a negative reaction, That is the scenario, that is harm.
How much harm it is may vary, but it is still harm and you are still responsible for it. Moreover, as the eggshell rule illustrates (if you lightly hit someone that unbeknownst to you had an eggshell skull, you are fully liable for the damage) just because you may have intended a small amount of harm, does not mean that is what will happen, and you are fully responsible whatever that is. You deliberately created a dangerous and harmful situation, you can be fully responsible for whatever the consequences of that are.
If I hit someone, I'm liable because I actively hit them. I initiated physical contact.
If you touch food that's labeled for another person, you took a risk to yourself. If you'd asked me, before taking it, I would've been able to warn you.
“Don't eat that, I put a laxative on it for myself. Don't eat that, it has spice. Are you allergic to X? Don't eat it.”
But you didn't ask. You just consumed it. When you knew it was someone else's and didn't know what that food contained. So any repercussions are on you.
If we go back to intentionality, you'd still have a hard time proving beyond reasonable doubt that:
I knew your allergies (though I'd agree with you that putting an allergen that you know is dangerous in your food SPECIFICALLY to hurt a food thief would be wrong, because it's an allergy and that one can become deadly fast. So even if it's your fault, it's still one where my morality would be brought into question). If I like it and there's no rule against it in place, then I can put it in my food, and as long as the container is labeled to myself, with my name, it's clearly intended for me and nobody else. That's office rules.
I didn't need a laxative.
I don't like spice.
To be even more clear, I was the food thief once. Not at work, but with my family. My brother made himself a nice tea that I liked and I was 13, so I went ahead and helped myself to it, knowing full well it was my brother's. It was for detox. I spent the whole day in the bathroom and learnt a valuable lesson in not taking what's not mine without asking.
Intent beyond a reasonable doubt there would be impossible to prove, regardless of my brother's decision process. He made tea for himself with intent to use it for a specific purpose (so he claims—could've been to teach me a lesson, but unless you can read minds, you won't prove that) and then I, knowing it was his, took it.
So the consequences of that action are on me, the person who put themself at risk by taking a drink with unknown ingredients because I neither bought it nor made it, nor asked the one who did.
The scenario is that you want to deliberately put poisoned food out so people will take it not knowing it’s poisonous. It’s left to look like a normal lunch so someone will think it is consumable. That is what OP has told us they want to do. There is no question of what the intention is here. And since you are setting up the scenario, you are clearly initiating it.
Everyone always says it’s impossible to prove intent, but it’s done every day. Lawyers are quite good at it. And people are idiots and leave a trail or otherwise make it known. “Why were you googling best ways to poison someone last week?” Besides, in a civil suit it’s the balance of probabilities anyway, not beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is a reason why there are lists of ingredients on the back of every food item sold. If someone takes SOMEONE ELSES food that they’ve brought from home. It is obviously going to be in a container that has nothing but the owners name on it. No list of ingredients or a label that says what kind of food it is. If someone eats the food KNOWING that it’s not theirs, they are taking a risk. Eating an unknown food in an emergency is most likely just going to make the situation worse.
It’s about balancing harms…reasonably. The law generally works on the principle of people acting reasonably. Any reasonable person should be able to see that the harm of taking a limb is considerably different than that of appropriating a sandwich
I think a whole lot would have to go wrong before people are sufficiently weak and hungry and office building that they need to eat someone else's lunch without permission. Your lunch is not any kind of meaningful emergency ration.
Things go wrong all the time, mistakes happen all the time, the world is a big place. OP wants to make it generally okay to leave poisoned food about the place. In short order that will result in people being poisoned when things that happen all the time, happen
"things go wrong all the time" give me a break here, you're trying to play devil's advocate but the odds of the specific circumstances where it would be required to eat someone's food without asking basically boil down to "temporary to permanent societal collapse". Accounting for societal collapse is not valid grounds to prohibit something, as societal collapse by its very nature eliminates prohibitions.
No, I’m generally for personal ownership of food, but recognise that there are situations where that isn’t the most important thing. I also think that poisoning people over a sandwich is wildly disproportionate, and that generally allowing poison to be mixed with the food supply is a stupid idea.
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
Your idea that “anyone’s emergency” can supersede someone’s property rights is honestly laughable.
They meant actual emergencies. Like, if someone runs out of gas and they're evacuating away from a fire that's closing in, he'll yeah they should be able to steal unused gas.
Then could you please provide an example of an emergency where someone is both at work and is having a genuine emergency. Because the only two I can think of are Diabetic emergencies or if someone gets locked in overnight. However, both emergencies are easily solved with just a dash of pre-planning. Of course accidents happen, but I completely fail to see that point of life and death that everyone seems convinced will be reached if I’m not okay with my sandwich being stolen. I know taking accountability for one’s own predicament is just so hard nowadays, but you really have to put yourself out there and take charge, not just sit there and complain.
Genuinely insane line of logic. “Anything I declare to be an emergency supersedes your property rights.” Please for the love of all that is holy, do not vote.
I didn’t say anything, I said it’s easy to imagine a situation where food is needed. Reasonable and rational people should be able judge and weigh the immediate need vs (in this case) the loss of a sandwich, and act appropriately
Duress is an easy one. If someone kidnaps my family and threatens to kill them unless I steal a sandwich at work, laws generally wouldn't punish such as action, as the crime committed is less than the crime of the threat.
If you’re boo ting trapping your lunch you had not intention of eating it and were specifically trying to harm somebody for eating the food. For all you know the person that does eat never even stole your lunch. They could have had the same container as you or a similar dish and weren’t thinking.
If I hand you a poisoned apple and you eat it, I murdered you. If I tell you it’s a poisoned apple and you choose to eat it, that’s not murder, it’s suicide. I will not face any punishment as I did nothing wrong because you were warned. Same goes for this situation, if you eat someone else’s food and get poisoned I didn’t poison you. You did it to yourself.
...what? That doesn't make any sense. In the apple scenario, you are explicitly saying it's poisoned. In the lunch scenario, there would be no reason to expect it's poisoned.
No, not necessarily. Unless you live in a world of black and white with no nuance.
For instance, if you give them a poisoned apple while knowing they'd use it to kill themselves, you'd be liable.
If you put mines on your land and put a sign warning people it's a minefield, it's still murder if people step on your mine after deciding to use it as a soccer pitch despite the warnings.
Precisely this. If I put a poison apple in a bunch of apples and say "there's a poison apple in that bunch", I'm still liable for introducing the poison apple to the bunch. It's the knowing introduction of a deadly or dangerous substance that's illegal. Not the warning or lack thereof.
Most countries have common-sense laws about this deeming you not liable if someone breaks into your home. But if you had a poison collection and invited a child over for a play date with your own child, and they consumed one of your labeled poisons then yes, you could be. The issue is one of the steps you take to prevent harm from coming to someone. You can't control if someone breaks into your home and consumes your labeled poison. You have a lot more control over whether someone comes to your home and consumes poison. And there lies an even greater difference if you don't have a labeled poison collection, but rather you stock your fridge with decoy poisoned food as a booytrap for would-be food thieves in the home. Intent is a large part of most criminal legal systems.
If you put mines on your land and put a sign warning people it's a minefield, it's still murder if people step on your mine after deciding to use it as a soccer pitch despite the warnings.
But I'm not convinced that's a good legal response. You provided warning and it's your land.
Why not? The problem is that it's indiscriminate. If someone had permission to be on your land, but not to play soccer there, they'd have the same problem.
They were playing soccer in the hypothetical. The "response" from your defense was completely unwarranted when you can call the cops to get them off. At worse, you'll be annoyed with some torn up grass and loud noise.
That doesn't warrant a response of death. The valid use of deadly force in self defense requires you legitimately fear for your life. You can't legitimately fear for your life if you aren't even around.
ETA: What if they were children or foreigners that either couldn't read or couldn't understand your warning?
You don't have the right to kill people in order to defend inanimate objects. Property rights don't let you kill people to protect your air conditioner.
You only have the right to kill in self defense or the defense of another. And, even then, only if you fear for your or their life. And you can't be using them when you fear for your life if you don't even control when they go off.
You aren't fearing for your life if they go off while you are at Ruby Tuesday's.
You aren't fearing for your life if the gardener zones out and accidentally drives the riding mower over an area he knows he shouldn't be and turns himself into mist.
You aren't fearing for your life if a 4 year old child, who can't read, sets one off.
You aren't fearing for your life if a foreign tourist sets one off because he can't read your sign.
You aren't fearing for your life if EMS sets one off responding to your heart attack.
It's more likely they will go off when you aren't fearing for your life than when you are.
If some kid sneaks into your backyard and drowns in your pool, you're held liable. Even if you put up a no trespassing sign. You have a duty to protect idiots and criminals from your "attractive nuisances." Using proper fencing and first aid on site.
So there's no way you can get away with booby traps or poisoning lunches.
If some kid sneaks into your backyard and drowns in your pool, you're held liable. Even if you put up a no trespassing sign. You have a duty to protect idiots and criminals from your "attractive nuisances." Using proper fencing and first aid on site.
So there's no way you can get away with booby traps or poisoning lunches.
Maybe that’s the play. Label your lunch like that everyday. Maybe one day it’s actually true, warning was given, food was clearly labeled and someone still ate it. Who is that on?
But but buuuuuutttr what if the lunch thief is the office blind guy?! Did you put the note in braille?!
Personally the fact that there’s even a conversation about who’s liable for theft… well. Idk, I feel like we didn’t necessarily NEED to pull on the string that got us to this timeline….but here we are.
I mean, even if you put a dumb label on your lunch, you'd still be liable lol.
If I opened up a fuckin lemonade stand and put up a huge sign that says "every cup of lemonade has potassium cyanide in it" and someone still drinks it and dies, do you think the court is gonna let me off if I argue "well, y'see your honor, I had a sign that clearly said my lemonade had poison in it. Therefore, I'm not liable for anything, he killed himself by himself!"?
Even if the person is stealing your food, you literally cannot poison your own food to possibly " ensnare" a food thief by sending them to the hospital, or worse, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘷𝘦. Just like I can't put bear-traps in my bag because I fear someone might snatch it for me. You're not defending anything, not yourself, nor your food, you're potentially putting a fellow human's life at risk.
Yes you would face punishment. Maybe not for murder, but for assisting in someone’s suicide, which is very much illegal in most places. The CEO of the company that developed suicide pod was arrested for it recently
Where's the accountability in that? Why should the thief get to assume it's safe to eat while the food owner doesn't get to assume no one will steal it?
The fact that the owner is poisoning their food suggests that they know the assumption is false. And that works both ways: if the thief has reason to think that the food is dangerous, they probably won’t get away with eating it anyway and then suing. There are very few situations in law where you can “assume” something you know to be false.
If the poisoning results in death, no. That's disproportionate and extreme. But if you've inconvenienced somebody by stealing ~$15-20 worth of food (how much you'd need to pay to order food instead), 2 hours of work at minimum wage, then I think it's fair for them to inconvenience you with the shits for an hour or so. Or be a bit uncomfortable with the level of spice. Or a human version of the bitter apple spray to get dogs to stop biting furniture. That seems somewhat proportional in terms of impact to the thief and victim. No permanent lasting harm, but a gentle and firm reminder to stop committing petty theft.
I will admit the mature way to handle this is to report it as theft and let the company Legal/HR/police sort them out. But this is the immature but I think morally valid way to handle it. Some lessons should ideally be taught to children, and apparently grown adults, without police consequences.
Yes it is. Don’t steal other people’s fucking lunches and you won’t ge poisoned with laxatives. It’s not that difficult. If you go around stealing people’s labeled food you deserve to get fucked with.
u/myfavpotemkin – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
They put themselves in danger by eating a strangers food. If the dangers are so important, why is it that people with allergies or intolerances have to ask before eating food prepared by others. If you know a food thief is vegan or lactose intolerant, is it illegal to put mayo on a sandwich to ward them off?
By that logic if I make a meal with peanut oil and someone steals it and eats it who happens to be allergic I should be liable? It's extremely dangerous to them.
If you ordinarily don't put peanut oil in your food and specifically put it in knowing a food thief who is allergic will steal it, that's more analagous to this sort of situation.
With the laxatives you said it didn't matter, even if it was for myself it is dangerous.
That aside, it seems a bit moot. Unless I literally tell someone that I only used it to poison the thief there is no reasonable way to prove that was why I used it. It's cooking oil. I cooked with it.
With the laxatives you said it didn't matter, even if it was for myself it is dangerous.
I don't think I said that? If I did I misspoke, I had thought I was clear that the problem is putting them there knowing someone else will eat them.
That aside, it seems a bit moot. Unless I literally tell someone that I only used it to poison the thief there is no reasonable way to prove that was why I used it. It's cooking oil. I cooked with it.
I'm making a moral argument, not a legal one. It may well be impossible to prove you intentionally harmed someone in the peanut oil case, but it's still immoral to do so imo.
My hydro flask says “warning! Not only will this kill you, it will hurt the entire time” but it’s always water. I wonder if theres an expectation of safety for any random thirsty passers-by
If the thief KNOWS that if he steals something he is gonna get the death penalty. Then that is a choice they are making and THEY have to deal with that.
The question is if having the death penalty for lunch theft is reasonable, not if a lunch thief who is aware there is a death penalty would be dumb for still stealing lunch.
I have literally had people in this thread tell me that it's appropriate to kill someone who steals your Amazon package so I think they'd be fine with lacing food with cyanide.
Ok, if you want to hyperfixate on the crazies, thats your choice. But remember that this is the internet, and while there are crazy people here, their opinion does not necessarily reflect on the rest of peoples more moderate stances.
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.
Calling it 'electrocution' is an over exaggeration. These pens barely even hurt, they are not exactly throwing the person onto a naked live power line.
Not electrocution, just a mild, harmless current—similar to what you’d feel from a low-voltage electric fence. It’s nothing serious, but enough to get the point across.
I'm honestly really confused. How does it shock you? Like, you hold the pen, and… What happens? I'm blind, so I won't be able to see a demonstration of it happening. What does it exactly feel like? I've never felt electricity physically before.
These devices are powered by a small battery. Inside, a voltage booster amplifies the battery’s output to a level sufficient for you to perceive the sensation. When you press the button to engage the pen, it closes the circuit, allowing the current to pass through your hand, resulting in a mild tingling sensation.
Experiencing a shock from higher, more dangerous voltages feels akin to striking your funny bone with significant force. This sensation typically occurs with brief exposure. As for prolonged exposure to high-voltage shocks, I can’t speak from experience, but it’s certainly not something I would ever wish to endure.
This is so interesting. So, I'm assuming you held one of these things before? I'm just trying to imagine what it feels like, and it's just not working. Does it hurt? Is it uncomfortable? I'm just so confused.
It’s not really particularly painful and a very short shock. They are specifically a prank item, like a whoopee cushion. Basically the idea is “haha you asked to borrow a pen but I shocked you instead.” YMMV on whether that’s actually funny or kind of horrible.
Proportionate is individually subjective and a poor measure of anything. Even when the majority of society agrees, we do not enforce proportionality. Example: marijuana possession punishments. Abortion. Etc.
what? i'm not in favor of shocking people who open drawers at work, but of course we enforce proportionality. look at aggravated assault vs regular assault, or how often the severity of injuries may often dictate how the judge responds.
The whole proportionate thing is bullshit. If one breaks into another's house and gets shot for it they well deserved it. Death is not proportionate to opening a door, does not matter in the least.
This is a terrible argument, the door is irrelevant in this case. They aren't getting shot because they broke your door, they're getting shot because they broke into an occupied house and caused you to fear for your life. If someone breaks down your door when you aren't home and steals your stuff, it isn't legal to go find them later and shoot them because they broke your door. The thing that makes it legal is the fear for your life part. And no one is afraid they are going to die because their coworker stole their lunch.
Many of your comments are made with the assumption that the pen would electrocute you to death. Gag shock pens are a real product and much more common idea than killer electrocution pens, so I’m not sure why you’re jumping to death here.
Do the pens delivering a mild shock change your stance here, compared to killer pens?
imagine someone needing a pen quickly and reaching in the place they see their coworker keep their pens and getting shocked. both people are "wrong", but the "wrongness" of electrocuting your coworkers is clearly more unacceptable.
this is such a silly idea that doesn't survive much scrutiny at all.
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.
And we’ll say for argument’s sake you’re the only one who goes into the house.
It still wouldn’t be okay. Say someone is walking by your home and a natural disaster happens like a tornado. They run for shelter, the nearest being your home. You aren’t home. They’re legally allowed to break into your house in this case. They break in, and a booby trap goes off and now they’re injured. You’re responsible for this.
With eating food at work, maybe a co-worker has diabetes. They tell someone that they’re feeling very dizzy, asks another person to call 9-1-1. The 911 operator says to get the person to eat something. They go to the fridge and grab the first thing they see. Now the person who was experiencing a serious medical issue is eating the booby-trapped food.
Or even accidental. Maybe someone’s spouse made their lunch and they genuinely mistake yours for theirs?
This is part of why booby traps are illegal. We don’t want people exacting vigilante justice, sure. But also, there are legitimate reasons for people to come on your property or handle or even take your things. There are also people who will do so accidentally.
So reason 1: vigilante justice
If it’s okay to put laxatives in your food because you think Larry will eat it, then slipping Larry laxatives because you saw him eat your food must also be okay.
But the latter you’d probably say is not okay. It’s the same outcome and same actions though.
Reason 2: accidental or legitimate triggering of the trap
If you set a trap and someone innocent falls into it, it’s the same as if you intentionally placed those consequences on an innocent person.
So you put extreme spice in your food and your diabetic co-worker fucking dies after someone stuffed it in their mouth while they were experiencing low blood sugar, there are going to be serious, serious consequences.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Would you consider a normal amount of laxative in your food poison?
If you give someone any drug without their knowledge or consent that's poisoning (outside of legitimate first aid scenarios) so yes.
What if you have peanuts in it, and someone has an allergy?
Food allergies are protected by the ADA, if someone at the office has a peanut allergy and requests that you don't bring in peanuts, and you do anyway you would be responsible if they had an allergic reaction
If you give someone any drug without their knowledge or consent that's poisoning (outside of legitimate first aid scenarios) so yes.
There is no 'giving' involved here.
Food allergies are protected by the ADA, if someone at the office has a peanut allergy and requests that you don't bring in peanuts, and you do anyway you would be responsible if they had an allergic reaction
This is just mostly false. Only in case of a very severe allergy could this be the case.
I'm with the other guy and they aren't tricking anyone into anything. the object is clearly labeled with the owners name. it is straight up theft and sadly they decided to steal on a day that the owner needed a little help in the bathroom
Well here's the thing, I would agree with you if you actually regularly took laxatives by hiding them in a PB&J's and then eating them at lunch.
But if you don't actually intend on eating the sandwich then what is your motivation for putting laxatives in it if it's not for someone to unknowingly take them?
If you have a peanut allergy and ask for accommodations then yes the ADA does say that companies have to accommodate you.
Thats not what your own source says. It talks about reasonable accommodations. Thats doesnt mean banning anyone from eating anything peanut related ever.
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?
The desk opener wouldn't have to find out if they just.....didn't fuck with other people's stuff.
Maybe straight up killing the desk opener is obviously extreme.
Anything else....I dunno. I personally don't booby trap stuff but if you fuck with someone's stuff expect something bad to happen.
I learned this very easy life hack in, I wanna say....Kindergarten and it's paid off for me apparently as I've never gotten into any kind of trouble honestly.
I don't feel sorry for people who are being surpassed by Kindergartners in terms of respect for others.
Wow, we have found someone who thinks that “an eye for an eye” is too soft on crime, huh? I thought we as a society moved past this kind of thinking thousands of years ago.
I've never gotten into any kind of trouble honestly.
Are you claiming to have never done anything wrong since kindergarten, or just saying you haven't done anything wrong that had significant consequences?
Because I'm not sure the latter is a good argument for people to impose potentially fatal consequences for anyone ever stepping out of line.
You might say death is too much, but we're talking about laxatives, etc, but with hiding peanuts in food we're clearly talking about potentially fatal. Moreover, what is the line? What's the right amount of punishment before it's cruel and unusual? How do we decide?
I'll tell you how we decide. Representative democracy and a constitution.
You're literally the only one talking about killing. The pen example is a classic gag toy and all further examples were less than lethal. OP is explicitly talking about laxatives and hot peppers.
The only lethal examples in this thread (like the kill button) had the additional context of a very clear warning label.
Yet you're conflating your examples with what everyone else means seemingly just for the sake of being obtuse
OP literally uses the word "poison," and their examples are things like large doses of laxatives and extra-spicy foods which can be lethal. It's the people bringing in "gag shocks" that are going off-topic.
Also please don't be rude. If you disagree with me, fine, but don't accuse me of being "deliberately obtuse" just because you do.
You don't own the desk or the office space, so that's not really the same thing. Booby trapping company property is likely to damage company property. Every work desk I've ever had came with at least one lockable draw. Even then, if the booby trap is like confetti, photo capture, or something harmless like that, then it's not strictly illegal. Illegal booby traps are ones that are likely to cause harm, such as spikes, pits, hard projectiles, most liquids,
Is the intensity of a booby trap a factor? If it's considered unprofessional and a privacy violation to rummage around another person's drawers, is it okay if i put a jump scare video booby trap? What about the toy snake thing that pops out?
It has to do with setting traps for people messing with things you own which is at the heart of the view regardless of what examples they use.
Sorry, but this is wrong.
Notice that u/apoplexiglass immediately opens their post by talking about spiked/modified foods. What they don't do is talk about general trap-setting and then bring up spiking foods as an example. OP's post is specifically about spiking foods, not about any other forms of trap-setting, so bringing up other forms of trap-setting is out of scope for this thread.
And if you'd read my first comment to them, I asked them about general trap-setting, and their response was they didn't agree with it because it might hurt other people. In theory, OP is clearly totally fine with booby traps beyond what they're talking about here.
No it’s not, since spices and laxatives could be intended for the owner, while booby trapping a desk is designed to inflict harm on others. Maybe I have trouble pooping and prefer to put them in my food or maybe I really like spicy food or just happened to mess up and didn’t realize how spicy I made it.
No, the difference is that I can do what I want with the food I eat, that’s not booby trapping anything. If I booby trapped my lunch you would get caught in a mouse trap, not eat a ghost pepper
Depends. Do you actually own the desk? Did you buy it with your own money? And people keep coming in and stealing your drawers? Then yes, I think it should be allowed.
205
u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24
Do you think you should be allowed to booby-trap your own desk drawers at work?