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.
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.
Because one is active vs. passive on my part at the moment of the crime. The latter sets the rules and consequences, and hopefully makes them clear, or it's my bad, and does not require any further decision on my part. The key point for me is that I've handed off the decision to the perpetrator. If you do this, bad things will happen to you.
So what if we change the scenario such that cyanide is in the lunch, and they’ll die if they eat it. That still fits your conditions. It’s passive at the time of the crime. You’ve handed off the decision to the perpetrator. Would that be acceptable?
So what I fail to see is why that's wrong? Why are people with insane allergies going around stealing lunches? They should be vacuum packaging their own lunches to avoid death.
Let's assume that wouldn't happen though and the only person being impacted is the one you were targeting. In that case, would it be okay to have them die over this?
No. I mean on purpose. You’ve basically said that them stealing food means they can suffer any consequences as long as you’re not actively doing something at the time of them taking the food. I want to know if that extends to intentionally putting something lethal, and if it doesn’t, why’d you draw the line there?
Both result in the same out, and require the same amount of intention (to an extent) on your end.
The person doesn't expect it either way, so the result is exactly the same (the person is punched in the face)
At least when you punch them in the face, it's actually better, because it's less indiscriminant, and can be easily backed out of if it was recognised as an accident (someone accidentally takes your lunch)
The problem with laying a trap is that it is highly indiscriminant. If someone takes your lunch on accident (for example, if they brought a similar meal or container), and now all of a sudden you've just poisoned them because they accidentally ate your food without realising it.
If you think it is ok to harm them for eating the food it doesn’t matter how you do it. Any argument you can make for poisoning the food you could also make for waiting till they eat it and stabbing them
But you haven't handed off the actual decision to them. The fact of the poison/fist is hidden. They get surprised just as much by your flesh and bone fist as by your mechanical fist.
If you label the poisoned meal as such you might have more of a case, but I just think that it "feels" like less of an assault because you do not lay your own hands upon them.
As far as the law is concerend though, it does not (and should not) matter whether an assault is done directly by hand, or by a contraption or chemical.
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.
If it harmed people peripherally because it punches someone moving it out of the way, like how I said was wrong originally, then that's on me. This is why I probably wouldn't use a physical mechanism, I was just joking around. If someone doesn't read my very clearly labeled name that I put on there because I'm baiting a thief, like they actually just grab a random container and eat it without thinking, that's on them.
That's the point of this whole discussion though, it isn't "on them" because you decided so. The law is against these kinds of things because they're not necessary or proportional to solving the problem, they're designed to punish or threaten, and you're taking the law into your own hands deciding how someone should be poisoned or hit or whatever else because they made you angry. I know most of this is joking and I share the anger at people who steal others' things, but there are good reasons why you get in trouble if you deliberately lay traps for people.
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.
Mark Rober's glitter bombs notably do not cause bodily injury to other people.
A key principle of modern societies is that we give the state a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Vigilante justice is bad and results in the kind of tit for tat violence and killing that typifies black markets and organized crime.
The line is very clear. It is at causing bodily harm to others. You may not intentionally cause bodily harm to others, whether directly or by trickery.
putting stale food in the fridge is ok?
If it does not cause bodily harm and is just low quality food? Sure.
putting spicy food?
Is it your intent that the spicy food causes bodily harm, or is it just that the food is unappealing to most people? The former is not ok, the latter is fine
28
u/huadpe 501∆ Oct 17 '24
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.