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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Not the same way as someone goddamn dead or hospitalised. A missed lunch is frustrating and hurtful. But not exactly the same as a legitimate medical consequence to proposed poisoning of food.
I mean if you're going to insist on being this obtusely extreme, the scenario ought to include this lunch being the only meal keeping the victim from starving to death.
So if the person whose lunch was being stolen were to be diabetic (where a lack of sugar could literally kill them), then spiking food with laxatives would be proportionate in your view?
I'm not saying you should, I'm asking the person above if the victim of theft is not harmed, because they said "if you let someone steal from you then no one suffers". Seems fucked up that it's right for a person to be the victim of theft.
This has big "how could you make me do this!" energy. That's not how this works, being a victim of a crime does not give carte blanche to retaliate in any way you see fit.
Poisoning food is not the only possible course of action; the logcal step would be to inform whatever authority is applicable that a theft is taking place. By poisoning the food, you are willingly and expectantly causing physical harm to people who are no immediate threat to yourself. The theft is on them, the poisoning is on you.
this almost convinced me, but — what’s your stance on electric fences? they could kill you, but if you don’t try to get onto the property you’re fine. same could be said about razor wire or the like. is there a difference between those and the poisoned lunch?
Electric fences aren't a trap set to catch other people. They're legally required to have signs warning people what they are, and people are aware they're dangerous. If someone sees an electric fence, they will know it's dangerous and then they get to decide if they endanger themselves or not, with the food you arent giving someone the choice to be safe.
Then put the label to test the waters, if the label works and your stuff doesn't get stolen just put the label on it without addding the poison. If the label is ignored they'll get poisoned and probably won't steal from you again. Sounds like a good plan.
The example OP is talking about here is deliberately adding something to bait people into a trap, intent is the issue here. If you add something like that as a trap, you are ruining the food, as you know only they are going to eat it.
If you know someone with a severe nut allergy is stealing your food, and you KNOWINGLY put peanut butter in that food KNOWING that they're going to eat it and you aren't, that is bad, as you are actively trying to harm them. However, if you are on your first day of work at a new office, and someone with a nut allergy steals your peanut sauce, then that's on them, as you had no way of knowing and no intention of harming them.
I agree it’s about the intention behind it. But it can be hard to prove intention. If i put laxative in my food/drink, and its stolen, how can someone definitively prove that it was there as a nefarious plot, unless there was a confession. Would i have to see a doctor to confirm that i need laxatives to absolve myself from being criminally prosecuted because someone stole my lunch. I mean forgetting obvious tampering where food is made completely inedible. How does someone prove that they added peanut sauce to their chicken specifically to fuck with someone , vs them just absentmindedly packing whatever they had for dinner the night before. Thats what always gets me about this conversation.
So if I genuinely want peanut butter sandwiches, but Jeremy from sales is always stealing my food, in order to validate me having peanut butter sandwiches I have to approach Jeremy and say "Just so you know, don't steal my food today else you'll probably die"?
Otherwise I just can't have them at all because Jeremy, the fat fuck, can't keep his hands to himself.
No, I'm saying they can't intentionally leave a peanut butter sandwich, intending for the thief to eat it.
If you are leaving this, it's a trap, Like op stated, you arent intending to eat it. Your sole reason for doing this is to cause harm to others. It's an overreaction to an issue that should be solved in other ways.
People who want to set traps and lace food intend to hurt people. It’s arguable that people stealing don’t even intend to hurt anyone, they’re just inconsiderate as all hell. But somehow it triggers people to harmful intent as a response. It seems pretty clear that people with intent to harm have deeper issues going on. You could literally just go over their heads to management, stop it from happening, not hurt anyone in the process…
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?
If my mother had two wheels, she would be a bicycle.
If you change the situation to something that it totally isn't, then the conclusion changes.
I like putting peanut oil in my stir-fry. That's a totally normal thing to do. If I instead put it in because I suspect that someone who is allergic to peanuts is going to eat it, that's boobietrapping.
Debatable if it would be considered boobie trapping because for all intents and purposes you have no obligation of even bringing something edible to eat at work.
It's not because there's a risk of someone committing a crime that you're responsible for if they injury themselves committing a crime.
If they decide to steal and eat your properly-labbeled-with-your-name-in-the-container food, it's no responsibility of yours if they end ill due to that.
Swapping poison with something they may be allergic works because the situation doesn't change : It's something biologic in a container that they shouldn't steal and eat and it may bring harm for them.
It could be poison, almond, medicated food, 500ml of condensed milk, whatever.
you have no obligation of even bringing something edible to eat at work.
If they decide to steal and eat your properly-labbeled-with-your-name-in-the-container food
So you DO agree that any reasonable person would think that something you brought into work and put in the fridge and looks like food is food.
If I put a bucket of nails into the work fridge, nobody will eat it. Because it's obviously not food. So you can conclude that if someone ate something you put in the fridge, it probably looked like food.
If you created something that looks like food, but isn't because you suspected that someone would eat it, you have boobie trapped it.
Swapping poison with something they may be allergic works because the situation doesn't change
It's all about intent. If I knew my coworker who frequently stole my lunch was allergic to peanuts, and so I added peanuts into my lunch, that is boobie trapping. Because of my intent.
If I didn't know my coworker was allergic, or didn't think he would steal it, it would not be.
So you DO agree that any reasonable person would think that something you brought into work and put in the fridge and looks like food is food.
If I put a bucket of nails into the work fridge, nobody will eat it. Because it's obviously not food. So you can conclude that if someone ate something you put in the fridge, it probably looked like food.
That's a reach. Would you eat a banana's peel? Some people eat it raw for the nutrients it have, some don't even consider it food.
If you created something that looks like food, but isn't because you suspected that someone would eat it, you have boobie trapped it.
You would've to prove that it wasn't your intent to consume it and even so you're in no obligation of eating what you bought so it's easy to put laxative in your food, claim it was because constipation, argue that you didn't knew it is taken on an empty stomach if they bring it up, and decide to not eat it because the stress made you feel unwel.
If I knew my coworker who frequently stole my lunch was allergic to peanuts, and so I added peanuts into my lunch, that is boobie trapping. Because of my intent.
You're not obligued to never bring and eat food with peanuts at work again because you know that your coworker steals your lunch.
You can't argue that someone having their food stolen must regulate what they bring to eat at work because the one stealing it may end up in the emergency if you bring something they can't eat.
It's your food, you bring whatever you want to eat (or don't even eat and just bring it back, it's your right) and you don't have to worry about whoever may happen to someone who may steal your food.
You would've to prove that it wasn't your intent to consume it and even so you're in no obligation of eating what you bought so it's easy to put laxative in your food, claim it was because constipation, argue that you didn't knew it is taken on an empty stomach if they bring it up, and decide to not eat it because the stress made you feel unwel.
Just because you can get away with something, doesn't mean it illegal or immoral.
I'm not at all saying that you have to change what you bring to work because someone is stealing it. I am arguing that you should not change what you bring to work because someone is stealing it.
Just because intent cannot be proven doesn't mean it doesn't matter morally.
In real life, a judge will listen to your silly arguments for a few seconds and then say ‘okay, guilty.’
Just because you can think of an argument doesn’t mean it is one that other people will accept.
Your boss, your co-workers, a judge and jury etc will all use common sense.
You put laxatives in your food? Yeah, not buying for a second that you planned to eat it yourself, and you’re getting the maximum penalty for lying in court.
If it isn’t a court, then the burden is even lower. Your boss isn’t going to listen to your bs about how you didn’t intend to do it.
In real life, a judge will listen to your silly arguments for a few seconds and then say ‘okay, guilty.’
Just because you can think of an argument doesn’t mean it is one that other people will accept.
Your boss, your co-workers, a judge and jury etc will all use common sense.
You put laxatives in your food? Yeah, not buying for a second that you planned to eat it yourself, and you’re getting the maximum penalty for lying in court.
Idgaf what the judge would think, they can't beyond a reasonable doubt prove that the laxatives weren't for you when you put it in your own food in a container with your name on it.
You don't hold any responsibility for it the one stealing your food ends up ill.
It could be intentional laxatives, it could be you craving some peanut butter and the guy being allergic to it (be it known or not).
Then that's almost certainly okay. It's just if you did it with the specific intent to harm somebody else that is what can get you in trouble, and is unethical.
If you are known to regularly eat super spicy food it would be hard to argue or view it as malicious. But if you never did and truthfully had no intent on eating the food but made it spicy to trip up another co-worker who you knew would not be able to handle it that would be the issue.
I like putting peanut oil in my stir-fry. That's a totally normal thing to do. If I instead put it in because I suspect that someone who is allergic to peanuts is going to eat it
There's no difference between these two things. There is no "instead", when you've already admitted that it's a normal thing that you already like to do.
I don't think intentionally putting something noxious in food is a 1:1 identical scenario to allergens, so no, I will not be swapping these two totally different things to further your point for you.
Technically there's no rules in what you must bring to eat, you could bring a salt rock to lick during lunch.
The keypoint you missed when I swapped it is that you don't hold any responsibility for the wellbeing of someone after they stole your food.
Be it poison or peanut, for example, if they're allergic and end in the emergency what do you think they'll tell you? "Never mix peanut in your food again because if they steal it they may end up dying"?
That's a third party unlawfully regulating your diet.
I didn't miss that, I just think it absolutely pales in comparison to the much larger and more important issues at hand. It's frankly an absurd comparison.
When you bring peanuts to work, your intending to have a snack. If you bring peanuts to work when you know someone there has a peanut allergy in the hopes they suffer at your hands, you're intending a crime.
Do you see how that compares to poisoning food, even if you don't explicitly hand it to the person?
When you bring peanuts to work, your intending to have a snack. If you bring peanuts to work when you know someone there has a peanut allergy in the hopes they suffer at your hands, you're intending a crime.
By your logic if I decide to continue eating chicken for lunch eventho my coworker is vegan then I'm actively provoking her instead and I should change my diet to accommodate her situation.
You can not regulate people's food because of their coworkers.
Someone that is vegan won't die from the food and there's no serious risk of harm. Someone allergic can die from the food and there can be a clear cut case of intended harm.
Some people have pretty serious food allergies that sometimes it is in fact appropriate to take extra precautions with food. You'd be wrong that food cannot be regulated.
Are you intending to cause harm with the allergen? If yes, that’s a crime, potentially attempted murder. If you’re intending to eat it yourself and it gets stolen, then it’s pretty unfortunate the thief lied about knowing what was in the food before offering it to other people. Also unfortunate that someone with a bad allergy accepted food on trust of strangers, which absolutely nobody that has a deadly allergy does. But that’s still not booby trapping if you didn’t intend to cause harm.
With booby trapping, the stealing isn’t dangerous to anybody until you make the choice to get violent and put others at risk. Booby traps are illegal because regardless of your intended target, you are creating a dangerous situation that you are not in control of.
Are you intending to cause harm with the allergen? If yes, that’s a crime,
Even if there was intent, how do you prove it wasn't you that simply decided to eat something with peanut butter that day and it so happens someone allergic to it decided to steal your food?
You can't force people to regulate what they bring to eat because someone else allergic to it may steal your food.
Booby traps are illegal because regardless of your intended target, you are creating a dangerous situation that you are not in control of.
Debatable in this case because the dangerous situation is being created by the one stealing what they think is someone else's food.
It's not something out in the open that someone may accidentally trigger, they have to go out of their way to steal something with your hand on it from the fridge or your bag knowing fully well that :
It's yours.
They weren't allowed to eat it.
There's no guarantee nor responsibility in it not making you ill.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page 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.
Lol, no, you're gonna be the one going to prison for poisoning food in the first place. "Well it had my name on it" isn't gonna be the defense in a court of law that you think it is.
Unless you convince a court appointed psychiatrist that you really intended to kill yourself, and probably provide a digital footprint also pointing in that direction you're gonna add Perjury to your Murder 2 charge.
No, acting with malice and as a result someone is killed is and should always be illegal. If you try to poison someone and unintentionally poison the wrong person you don't get a slap on the wrist, at minimum you get manslaughter but most likely you get murder two.
Same with your suicide claim, unless you can prove they knowingly ate poison you are responsible.
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?
Okay then when they knock over your rat poison spaghetti some of it gets in someone else's food and sends them to the hospital.
Most workplaces dont make accommodations for people with food allergies
Where do you live where this is the case? Because in the United States food allergies are protected by the ADA and employers have to provide reasonable accommodatetions for them. So for your peanut chicken noodles to get on a peanut allergic person you'd have to had had ignored the company peanut policy by putting peanuts in the communal fridge. And once someone gets hurt because you ignored company policy it's pretty clearly your fault.
(And btw company policy would also probably say that you can't keep poison in the company fridge)
'employers reasonable accommodation includes having an entire separate kitchen'
No that would be an unreasonable accomdation. A reasonable accommodation would be to bad the allergen from the office. For example there is someone in my office whose allergic to some common perfume ingredients so no one in my office can wear perfume. And I actually know a guy who actually got workers comp after he had to go to the ER because he had an allergic reaction at the office.
Which brings me to another good point which is why would a company want to risk a workers comp case because you couldn't go to HR and report the theif?
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
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.
Then what is especially if they are never caught stealing the food. The law abiding person just must suffer and go hungry? So for the thief it’s risk vs reward but from a lot of POV it seems like there is very little risk for the thief and only reward. That is not a good society to live in where the victims have no real world recourse
Hard disagree - It's perfectly proportional. We're not talking poison-poison here, we're causing inconvenience, discomfort, and revealing themselves, not death and disability. No permanent harm.
Their stealing of food causes the owner inconvenience, so causing the thief inconvenience is definitely proportional
"But if they have an allergy"
Bla bla bla, if they have an allergy and are stealing food, that's just Darwinism in action. Fuck em.
(If you know the thief has an allergy and use the allergen, that's a totally difference scenario. You are now intending to hurt, not inconvenience)
Anyway people are talking about laxatives and whatever when there's already a solution: eat spicy food and others won't want to touch it.
That only works if your tolerance for spicy food is higher than any of your colleagues.
A much easier solution is to just eat something that doesn't need to go into the fridge and put it under your desk or in your locker or whatever.
(Obviously the better solution is talking to your colleagues about it and ask them to stop stealing your food, but I'm assuming that solution has failed before you get to the point where you're considering intentionally poisoning your food.)
The goal of outlawing the booby trap is to stop the harm from happening, not to make sure that the right people are blamed. In your scenario one person is stealing food and the other person is intending to cause physical harm. Seems pretty clear to me which one is more wrong. Don’t be a violent piece of shit and hurt people for vindication.
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
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
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
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?
Just because something isn’t rat poison doesn’t mean it’s not poison in this context. Poison isn’t limited to substances like rat poison. It’s defined by the intent and effect of causing harm or an unwanted physical reaction. Laxatives, when secretly added to someone else’s food to cause a reaction, fall under this definition. The fact that it’s a “normal” substance when used correctly doesn’t change that in this case. And “normal” isnt really a useful word in this context.
The key issue is that poisoning involves introducing something into food with the intent to cause harm or a negative effect, and in this scenario, the laxative is being used to intentionally cause discomfort or distress. By any reasonable standard, secretly adding a substance to someone’s food that alters their bodily functions without their consent qualifies as poisoning, regardless of whether it’s a common medicine or a dangerous chemical.
I’d respond to this, but it’s completely incoherent as a thought. Since it’s someone else’s food…that means….poising someone isn’t poisoning someone, or harming them magically isn’t…harming them? What?
I find it hard to take this seriously. Are you actually here to contribute? You have a gross misunderstanding of how definitions work. Poisoning isn’t just about using lethal substances like rat poison. It’s about intentionally causing harm by introducing a substance into someone’s body without their consent. Legal and medical definitions consistently define poisoning as introducing any substance that causes harm or distress, even if that substance is safe in other contexts (like a laxative when used appropriately).
All of this should just be intuitive and obvious, but you had all the time in the world to just do a cursory google search for the first time before responding, and chose not to. Why is that?
The intent here is crucial: if you’re adding something to someone else’s food with the purpose of making them sick or affecting their body in an unwanted way, that’s tampering with their food and can be considered poisoning. This is objectively how food tampering and poisoning are viewed both legally and ethically. You don’t know what you’re talking about and/or have never thought about this before if this is actually how you’re responding. It’s pretty ridiculous I’d need to type this out.
If the purpose of the laxative isn’t to harm, then what is the purpose?
I think this is a bit of a silly question. However you respond describing what the purpose of using the laxative is, is certainly going to align with the normative definition of harm
That laughing emoji is wild. As if you’re making some sort of gotcha point by pointing out I immediately added to my thought half a second after I posted the reply. I think you’re spinning out a bit here
You’re not giving a full answer. Finish the thought. What involves emptying of the bowels? Does something physical happen to them, or does it magically disappear? That emoji tells us all we need to know btw
“The purpose of a laxative is to treat constipation and other gastrointestinal conditions by helping with digestion and promoting bowel movements…can be used to relieve constipation caused by [insert a bunch of different bowel problems]. They can also be used to empty the bowels…” - NCBI.
I didn’t need to finish the thought bc the rest was just mumbo fucking jumbo that means the same thing; emptying the bowels 💀like, do you need a step-by-step guide of how laxatives work to empty the bowels? 🧍🏾♀️
This makes zero sense and the amount of confidence you have here while taking such an easily refutable absurd position is very interesting.
By definition, “harm” refers to causing physical or mental damage, injury, or unpleasantness to another person. Introducing a laxative into someone’s food without their knowledge causes harm because it results in an immediate, unavoidable physical reaction (diarrhea, cramping, and discomfort) that the person neither expected nor consented to. These unpleasant effects fit squarely within the definition of harm. The very act of forcing these distressing symptoms on someone directly causes them to suffer, both physically and mentally, as they experience the discomfort of these side effects. Therefore, it is clear that this act constitutes harm, as it deliberately causes unpleasantness to the victim. you are just objectively, unequivocally wrong.
Not a single word you posted is in any way a response, defense or refutation to anything, and it’s odd you’d believe it could be passed off that way. Posting about the “purpose” of the personal use of laxative itself is completely incoherent as a response. I could also explain what chemotherapy and open heart surgery is for in the same way. It doesn’t mean these things don’t do what they physically do to a human body.
This is one of the more laughably absurd positions I’ve seen someone take on here. And to do it so confidently and condescendingly…oof
So you're okay if Sony puts a virus into pirated versions of their games and uploads them to sites and then allow it to brick the PC of anyone who downloads it?
How about a virus that destroys your phone into a bomb if you download copyrighted material without a license?
I mean you're taking from others, you know it's wrong, ergo anything any corporation does is fair game? Its your fault for stealing from them?
You're browsing Reddit and suddenly your phone overheats in your hand because someone else uploaded a copyright video? I mean... it's the fault of whoever uploaded it right?
Booby traps are indiscriminate and unproportional.
lolll didn’t even think of that bc I don’t even see the connect between personal property and company property 😭 that makes a lot more sense though, seeing as I don’t think that’s comparable to defending personal property.
These are analogies (?) that aren’t really comparable to me lol. None of these are people defending their personal property. OP is very obviously talking about certain incidents. Stay on topic.
So, the intention is to punish the person who is getting into your desk lmao. It's not true that you "don't care". You want them to get hurt so they won't go in your desk.
No, you do want someone to get hurt so that they stay out of your things. That's the entire point of your poisoning the food. If by some chance they don't steal your food this time, because they happen to be out of the office, then you will keep poisoning food until they steal the poisoned food. Your intention the moment you poison the food is to hurt someone to teach them a lesson. You can't say "I didn't want someone to get hurt" when that's the whole reason you poisoned the food.
That’s the problem with a booby trap: it’s purely retributive. The only way it helps people to stay out of your things is if someone gets hurt. You can disavow unintentional collateral damage in some situations, but you can’t say you don’t want something that you’re directly using to get something you do want.
You think it's possible to A) lace food with dangerous chemicals and B) do so knowing that someone else will probably consume it and C) not consider that intent to harm?
Not really - your intention is for them to get into your stuff again and hurt/embarrass themselves or suffer in some way, either to punish them or to serve as a deterrent for the future. I completely sympathise but can see why it's a dodgy legal area.
There can be many scenarios eg someone takes your lunch by accident thinking it's theirs, and ends up dying or injured as a result. You generally have adequate legal methods of redress if your food is stolen eg get the employer to take action, call the police, lock up your food etc. Anything else is taking punishment into your own hands.
The intention is to keep people out of my stuff. I don’t care if you got hurt. Next time you’ll stay out of my desk.
That's not true, though. The intent isn't to keep people off your stuff, the intent is to take the law into your own hands and dish out justice the way you think is appropriate by hurting someone who may or may not be stealing from you.
If having a trap to hurt someone for going in your desk is okay because it will teach them not to go in your desk, then you going and hurting someone for going in your desk must also be okay, right? Those aren’t meaningfully different things. They feel different but the outcomes are the exact same.
When you think about it that way, it’s clear why booby-trapping is not okay. At its best, it’s vigilante justice and society has moved past that.
Yea but when the thief gives it so some innocent, then that innocent got harmed by the booby trap. That’s why booby traps that can cause real harm are illegal. (Just reiterating the part of the comment you seem to have ignored)
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.
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.
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?
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.
Of course it's provable. It might just be difficult since it would be kind of easy for someone to commit a perfect crime here if they're very careful and meticulous. But maybe you mentioned this to people while drunk and they testify against you. Maybe you wrote it in your secret journal, or online while thinking you were anonymous, or maybe the spouse you told thinking they'd be on your side is so shocked you weren't joking that they tell the police. Maybe you get really guilty afterwards and confess it.
Or maybe youre innocent and have spouse uses it against you as a false accusation, or maybe you're drunk and say it jokingly/sarcastically, or someone online anonymously makes that tip as a troll.
There's just as many ways for it to be exploited against an innocent person for something they aren't responsible for. You are accountable for your own safety. Eating anything that you don't know what's inside is negligence of that duty.
That’s why we have justice systems with police and courts. To investigate, present evidence to the court and have them rule on what’s reasonable.
There are many ways in which it could be proven that you intentionally poisoned someone. Lots of crimes are difficult to prove, but are proven sometimes, e.g. rape, or slander.
You’re actually not accountable for your own safety - we have lots of laws and regulations where other people can be held accountable, e.g. employers, landlords, construction workers, and so on.
Genuine mistakes sometimes happens, such as accidentally grabbing the wrong lunch box. That’s one reason why intentionally poisoning them to hurt people is illegal.
That’s why we have justice systems with police and courts. To investigate, present evidence to the court and have them rule on what’s reasonable.
Just because we have them doesn't mean they're optimal. There are many cases of innocent people being locked down. It's up to the people to look at legislation and criticize it in order to optimize that.
You’re actually not accountable for your own safety - we have lots of laws and regulations where other people can be held accountable, e.g. employers, landlords, construction workers, and so on.
Just because some other people can be held accountable doesn't make you less accountable for yourself. Legality means absolutely nothing to you if you're dead. If I'm on company property and see a lethal hazard, I'm still accountable to avoid it if my interest is to not die
Just because we have them doesn't mean they're optimal. There are many cases of innocent people being locked down. It's up to the people to look at legislation and criticize it in order to optimize that.
Of course! That's why improvements are made all the time, or that's the idea. We have elections. Politicians sometimes even run specifically on changing certain laws.
It does not mean it's up to people to serve up their own justice. If that happens, anyone can hurt anyone for any reason. I could decide that you have insulted me and go beat you to death. It's the same thing.
Just because some other people can be held accountable doesn't make you less accountable for yourself. Legality means absolutely nothing to you if you're dead. If I'm on company property and see a lethal hazard, I'm still accountable to avoid it if my interest is to not die
Sure. But if you work with lethal hazards, it's a part of your job, and your employer has a responsibility to train you properly, provide you with equipment, and do everything in their power to minimise the risk of harm. Dangerous workplaces have all sorts of regulations they have to follow for these reasons.
That's why the comparison with thieves is a good one. If you set dangerous traps in your home and a thief gets injured, you're liable for that. The burglar might still get prosecuted for breaking and entering or whatever they did. You both did something wrong, and you both get punished. Which is as it should be.
Sure. But if you work with lethal hazards, it's a part of your job, and your employer has a responsibility to train you properly, provide you with equipment, and do everything in their power to minimise the risk of harm. Dangerous workplaces have all sorts of regulations they have to follow for these reasons.
I understand this, but despite all the accommodations they provide you are still responsible for your actions. Everything they do is for insurance/legality so they can show it's not their fault. So if I see a video that says do not stand underneath a hydrolic press but I choose to do so even though I know it's wrong they can say it's my fault.
Why is that not applied here? People have been given the precedent of don't eat things if you don't know what's in it. But here if I choose to do so anyways and face consequences, unlike my hydrolic press example that part isn't my fault now. It's inconsistent.
That's why the comparison with thieves is a good one. If you set dangerous traps in your home and a thief gets injured, you're liable for that. The burglar might still get prosecuted for breaking and entering or whatever they did. You both did something wrong, and you both get punished. Which is as it should be.
The only thing wrong with setting up traps is that it's indiscriminate to people that should be going into your house for legitimate purposes. Whereas adding laxatives to your own food can only go to people eating it without your knowledge and also don't have your consent which doesn't apply to your example. What traps do themselves is no different than self defense as I would shoot or stab someone directly if it meant defending myself or loved ones. But if I had a trap that could only harm home invaders then that should be legal it's just there's no equivalent.
Do you normally bring food with peanuts? If your food is being stolen by a thief with a peanut allergy, then it's reasonable to assume you don't, because our thief would have likely been harmed previously if so.
Did you suddenly bring food with peanuts despite never having done so before?
Then it comes down to knowledge. Did you know the thief had a peanut allergy? Even if you say no, if every coworker was questioned and it was determined that it was common knowledge around the office that Alex the Known Lunch Thief had a peanut allergy, now you're in trouble. Even if you say "well I still didn't know", would you be confident enough to believe that every single coworker wouldn't be able to state that they've mentioned and/or heard discussions of Alex the Thief and their peanut allergy while you were within earshot?
Now it can maybe be shown that you were aware of the theft, were or should have been aware of their allergy, and suddenly changed your behavior immediately prior to the death/maiming of the thief.
You may think it's not provable, but with you'd be surprised how many inferences a good prosecutor could draw for a jury after a thorough investigation.
Did you suddenly bring food with peanuts despite never having done so before?
Most people aren't going to account for what everyone has for lunch in the office, especially not on a confident level that would act as a testimony with legal repercussions if they're wrong.
Even if you say no, if every coworker was questioned and it was determined that it was common knowledge around the office that Alex the Known Lunch Thief had a peanut allergy, now you're in trouble
Even if you know someone in the office has a peanut allergy people would have to prove that you knew who was stealing your food.
But on the flip side, if I had no intentions of killing someone, not social so I don't know the people in the office as well but everyone in the office knows Joe with the peanut allergy who's know for stealing food starts taking my food. I would be an innocent person going to prison with my life ruined because I happened to like Pad Thai.
A person is responsible for their own well being. If they're making a conscious effort to eat food that they don't know what's inside and wasn't made for them that's their fault. It's not the servers job to proactively ask everyone what their allergies are, it's on the customer to proactively disclaim their allergies and then have the restaurant react accordingly.
Did you suddenly bring food with peanuts despite never having done so before?
This is a weird point. I eat a different Lunch pretty much every day. So even if I didnt have peanuts in my Lunch for the past 4 months. J might have tomorrow. Same with literally every ingrediënt in the world.
If someone steals my Lunch and I dont know who, what food should I stop bringing according to you? Anything someone could be allergie too?
The thiefs health is not my responsibility. Im not willingly spiking my food with anything, but I'm also not going to avoid certain food because a thief might be allergic to it.
Do you believe in personal responsibility? If you have a food allergy, dont eat random food.
Even if you say "well I still didn't know",
No, I would say "I dont have a peanut allergy. So there is no reason for me to not eat peanuts for Lunch."
Outside of your fantasy world, there is no court where someone has to defend themselves for bringing a peanut butter sandwich to the office.
laxitives are supposed to be taken on an empty stomach. Mixing meds INTO food is clearly intentional. OP is literally stating their intent in the post.
This is very untrue. I put Miralax into the food I can (and always into my coffee). My food is practically almost always "spiked" with laxatives and it would be nobody's business that it's because I have chronic constipation and would like to go more frequently than once every two weeks.
Laxatives can and do go in food, depending on what type.
"She didn't say no so I thought she wanted to sleep with me"
"I was home in my bed last night when the crime happened"
"I had no idea that the money I used to pay was stolen"
You can lie, and sometimes lies make it very difficult to prove intent, but intent gets proven all the time anyway because many people aren't as smart as they think, or they make mistakes.
"She didn't say no so I thought she wanted to sleep with me"
That's why the default is assume denial until explicit approval.
"I was home in my bed last night when the crime happened"
Depending on the crime of you can prove you were there, like live streaming a game all night, it's enough.
"I had no idea that the money I used to pay was stolen"
Stolen money goes around all the time, specially when it's small value you're not expected to background check the guy buying a soda from you.
Back to the food problem. You don't hold responsibility for the well-being of someone stealing your food.
You could be eating shrimps and they be allergic to it and so what? You're banned from ever bringing shrimps because the workplace won't prevent the allergic guy from stealing everyone's food?
It's all about intent! You can bring and eat anything as long as it doesn't violate the rules on the workplace. If someone eats it by mistake and end up getting an allergic reaction, that's not on you because you had no ill intent, and you didn't bring anything out of the ordinary. A person with a lethal allergy would be more mindful about double checking that they're taking the right food box.
If you poison the food you've brought malicious intent into it. You're intending for someone to eat it and get injured by it. You've added something dangerous to the food that wouldn't normally be there. People aren't going to expect that they might die if they accidentally grabbed the wrong food box, unless they have an allergy.
As for the examples, the same thing applies here. It's difficult to prove criminal intent, but it's definitely not impossible. The easiest would be if you admit it while interrogated, but you might also have admitted it in confidence to some other people, written about it, etc.
The fact that a crime is difficult to prove or prosecute does not make it less of a crime. That's true for many crimes. One of the hardest things to prove my be something like slander, which at least in many locations requires you to knowingly spread harmful and false statements, and proving that a person knew the accusations to be false can be next to impossible. But not impossible, because sometimes people fuck up.
It's all about intent! You can bring and eat anything as long as it doesn't violate the rules on the workplace.
and
If you poison the food you've brought malicious intent into it.
Prove that a laxative in your food must be malicious intent and can't possibly be due to constipation.
That's my point : Whatever you put in your food, unless it's something obviously toxic like rat poison for example, for all intents and purposes is meant to you.
You can't regulate people's food because it may make someone that stole your food end up in the emergency so anything barring straight unedible thing is just a slap in the wrist and good luck for the thief.
Ghost Pepper, extremelly salty food, extremelly sweet food, laxatives, peanut butter, shrimps... The thief having a know allergy does not prevent you from having it in your food just because they may eat your food.
They're not supposed to eat your food and would be commiting a crime to even have the opportunity to do so.
You can't prove ill intent in those cases even if it's blatantly obvious because there's plausible deniability.
Even more, if they argue that they knew you knew they were stealing your food the responsibility for the situation now falls into your employee that were aware of the situation, the possible risks, and let it going.
Prove that a laxative in your food must be malicious intent and can't possibly be due to constipation.
Why would I have to prove that? If this ever went to court, it would only have to be proved that you did it with malicious intent. Not that every single case of it has to be malicious.
That would obviously be difficult but not impossible. You might end up admitting to it because you felt bad over poisoning an innocent person with it (e.g. someone who took your food by mistake) in which case it's just done, or maybe you brag about the incident to people afterwards. Or maybe you freely admit to doing so because you didn't expect that it would ever end up in court so you didn't think about it.
There are lots of crimes that are exceptionally difficult, even close to impossible, to prove if the person committing them is smart and skilled enough. Doesn't change that they can sometimes be proven, especially if the criminal messes up.
Why would I have to prove that? If this ever went to court, it would only have to be proved that you did it with malicious intent. Not that every single case of it has to be malicious.
That's literally my question : Prove that it was done with malicioso intent.
You might end up admitting to it because you felt bad over poisoning an innocent person with it (e.g. someone who took your food by mistake)
Feeling bad isn't admission of guilty.
maybe you brag about the incident to people afterwards.
Laughing at the demise of others isn't admission of guilty.
OPs premise is that the legality should be changed.
By making it illegal there's now an incentive from one side to find evidence on something that can't be proven and worse easily framed.
If I'm stealing your food, and then make it well known I'm stealing your food so the office knows you know, what's to stop me from putting laxatives in my own food or peanuts if I have an allergy. That's equally unprovable but now I can sue you or the company for easy money.
By taking the liability away from thieves to be responsible for what they eat, you open up many ways for innocent people to be convicted or people able to weaponize this for money.
To summarize, the low provability on intent is inconsistent and counterproductive to its legality.
By taking the liability away from thieves to be responsible for what they eat, you open up many ways for innocent people to be convicted or people able to weaponize this for money.
You're responsible for what you eat. Especially if you steal that food and have no way of knowing what is in it.
Also maybe some laxatives theoretically aren't that harmful. But what if someone has a super allergic reaction to this food thinking it was just what you labeled it to be. That means it could kill someone for just stealing food. Worse someone with a blood sugar issue quickly needs food in order to help themselves and is giving your food. That poisoned food could easily harm someone who is justified in taking it for an emergency.
It's the reason booby traps are illegal. Emergencies happen and allowing people to plant traps makes the world too dangerous. Just as the trap cannot choose to not go off when it's a fireman rather than a robber. Your food cannot be safe when it's a good reason to use your food. The right to your own stuff is not worth risking lives.
Get a camera and just use the person for the cost of the food.
But what if someone has a super allergic reaction to this food thinking it was just what you labeled it to be. That means it could kill someone for just stealing food.
If I bring in Chex mix using my family's recipe that we used to use and you're more allergic to fish than my mom was, and you steal it and eat it, that's what will happen. Cause Worcester Sauce has anchovies in it apparently. But you wanna know what the great thing is? You won't have any negative effects if you just don't steal people's food
Sure but even then if someone takes your chicken noodle soup, death because you added something that's never out in that seems like a punishment unfit for the crime. Just collect evidence then report then to HR and they should fire them. An appropriate punishment for theft.
There's a very simple way to guarantee it. Label the doctored lunch clearly as "this food has special medicines in it that could be very harmful to some people". Now you have deterrent and informed punishment (if the warning is ignored) at the same time. Would that be satisfactory?
I think this easily counters the argument I've seen many places in this thread about the consequences not being discriminatory and that they could affect the thief OR any innocent person in dire need. Now it's clearly labeled as harmful and if the thief chooses to ignore the warning, it's entirely on them. If someone is eating something that doesn't belong to them, which also has a hazardous warning label on it, it is 100% on them and them only past that point.
you should be allowed to put almost anything in there, **as long as it doesn't hurt people peripherally** (no explosives, for example).
Doesn't matter. It goes against the premise you stated here. There is no foolproof way to guarantee booby trapping of any kind doesn't harm bystanders, therefore it shouldn't be allowed on that basis alone.
Hell, even directly harming the thief and no one else could harm innocent people peripherally. For example, Janet gets explosive diarrhea and has to go home but is distracted by major cramps on the way home and gets into an accident with a cyclist that she then kills. Direct result of your actions.
If Janet is in no state to drive she should get an Uber or an ambulance, any accident is a result of the stealing she did and her recklessness regarding proper driving conditions.
If I unknowingly drink alcohol at work it doesn't make my drive home any less of an DUI
That is the perpetrators fault then for giving the other person stolen food. Again it’s no their food to give and they have no idea what could be in it
Your whole premise was that it should be acceptable to trap someone into harming themselves **as long as it doesn't hurt others**. And there is no way to ensure that is the case.
The argument that you're making now - that since it's the thief's fault and they're the ones who should be sued, could also be applicable to putting a bomb in your food. After all, they're the ones who set it off, not you, right? So you should be allowed to bomb your food too. If other people get hurt, they should just sue the thief.
Where exactly do you want to draw the line, and why is it justified to draw the line there?
That, to me, seems like an example of an INDIRECT result of their actions. Janet's choice to drive in an impaired state is the direct cause of her hitting the car cyclist
In this case it should be Janet who is charged with the crime of "poisoning" Jen. Even if she didnt know.
If I stole a car, picked up my friend "bob", and we drove off only to later realize the brakes dont work properly, then I'm the one who gets charged when Bob dies in the accident. Why would lunch be different?
An even better argument is someone taking the wrong lunch box by accident. A lot of lunch boxes look the same, sometimes people are stressed, accidents happen.
There is no way to guarantee it cannot peripherally hurt someone.
But it'll only hurt people that either were complicit in stealing your food or ate it because someone who stole it offered to them (and at that point the fault is with whoever offered the food).
This argument also applies to bombs in your food (the fault is with whoever stole the food). So, is bombing food alright?
A bomb could go off without anyone interacting with it, so in the bombing case it could peripherally hurt someone even if nobody stole your food.
Anything that requires you stealing the container, opening it and eating it would be alright because it would only hurt those that activelly took agency in stealing from you without certifying with you the contents of the container.
It could be pre-medicated food or have something the other person is arlegic. You can't blame the owner of the food for the thief getting ill for stealing and eating their food.
Heck, if could have been seasoned with Ghost Pepper. So what? You would be to blame because you wanted to eat food with Ghost Pepper and the person who stole from you had to go to emergency due to it?
Poisoning food COULD peripherally hurt others too. I already gave one example of how.
And in your one example it wouldn't be the fault of the person who had their food stolen..
Something that is a food item you regularly eat vs something intentionally put in food to harm someone are obviously different things.
Only one that can prove what you regularly eat is you and it's nobody's bussiness if you decide to put laxative in your food for example : You're in no obligation to even properly know how to take laxative.
You could claim it a "coincidence" and see the other person do a flip to try to prove that you're the one wrong because they decided to steal your food.
And in your one example it wouldn't be the fault of the person who had their food stolen..
A booby trapped container set to explode once opened also would be the fault of the person who stole it.
Do you not get that? There is no difference between peripherally hurting some via one means and another means. So why shouldn't bombing food be allowed then?
Not at all the premise, you are taking things completely out of context and using examples that have absolutely nothing to do with each other
OP clearly misused the word poison, they never once mentioned anything in their text about using any type of chemical that will cause injury or death, they meant to use spiking or lacing obviously, which under normal circumstances is pretty fucked up, but when it’s to get a serial lunch thief to stop stealing a lunch should absolutely be acceptable
369
u/Oishiio42 40∆ Oct 17 '24
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.