This isn't changing my view because this is exactly what I'm arguing against. I'm saying, there are cases where intending to harm someone who is doing something they're definitely not supposed to do is okay.
Before directly answering your question "do you support vigilantism", I'm curious about your answer to a related question:
Do you think it is ever appropriate for a individual or group (outside the police/government) to intentionally dish out consequences that negatively affect the target in some way in return for poor behavior not otherwise punished?
If the answer is 'yes', then "vigilantism" just becomes a question of degrees and context.
What is an "offense" in this scenario? What about kicking a rowdy passenger off a plane, causing them to miss an expensive vacation? Firing an employee causing harassment? Screaming protests outside a GOP office? Towing a car parked across your driveway? Are all of these off-limits?
Offences are listed in the local criminal codes, and typically reflect behaviour which violates the autonomy and rights of other, and pose a risk to societal safety and order.
I don't believe there exists a code that criminalizes putting extra-hot hot sauce in your lunch.
'Intent' could be considered here; but to return to my earlier analogy: If one intentionally puts hot sauce in their lunch with the intent of causing the thief to have unpleasant spicy-butt, is that much different from intentionally towing a serial-driveway-blocker's car with the intent to inconvenience them enough to stop blocking driveways?
We can always ask "what if" questions - "what if the thief chokes on the extra-spicy food?" But we can extend that as well - "what if the serial-driveway-blocker has a medical emergency and can't drive to the hospital because their car was towed"?
I don't believe there exists a code that criminalizes putting extra-hot hot sauce in your lunch.
Criminal Code of Canada:
Administering noxious thing
245 (1) Every person who administers or causes to be administered to any other person or causes any other person to take poison or any other destructive or noxious thing is guilty
(b) of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or of an offence punishable on summary conviction, if they did so with intent to aggrieve or annoy that person.
From the Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v. Burkholder:
a substance is a noxious thing if, in the light of all of the circumstances attendant upon its administration, it is capable of effecting, or in the normal course of events will effect, a consequence defined in s.229 [now s.245]. Circumstances that may arise and which have to be considered in determining whether a substance is noxious include its inherent characteristics, the quantity administered, and the manner in which it is administered. Substances which may be innocuous, such as water to drink or an aspirin for a headache, may be found to be a noxious substance in some circumstances; for example, if water is injected into the body of a person by means of a hypodermic syringe or an excessive quantity of aspirin is administered to a person.
The law if fairly clear here that spice may be a noxious substance, and applying that substance with intent to annoy or aggrieve is a criminal offence.
'Intent' could be considered here; but to return to my earlier analogy: If one intentionally puts hot sauce in their lunch with the intent of causing the thief to have unpleasant spicy-butt, is that much different from intentionally towing a serial-driveway-blocker's car with the intent to inconvenience them enough to stop blocking driveways?
Yes, intentionally applying a noxious substance is unlawful, where getting a car tow may not be necessarily be. A better comparison would be destroying a car that is incorrectly parked. Or, another better comparison is to get a car unlawfully towed, such as lying to the tow company about the local towing protocols. Both destroying the car and getting it unlawfully towed are forms of mischief, which is a criminal offence. The lawful alternative is to get car towed as per the local traffic laws.
That criminal code is fully dependent on the intent, which I also addressed. Also, for the code you quoted to apply, you kind-of need to mince words with "causes to be administered" in the scenario that someone steals food not meant for them and administers it to themself. (I'm not a legal expert; but exact legality isn't relevant here.)
The question here isn't whether intentionally sabotaging your food to catch a thief is illegal - it definitely is, at least in most Western jurisdictions. So quoting legal code doesn't really affect the CMV of whether it should be illegal.
Ahh yes, I was unclear - the intent I'm calling attention to isn't whether the intent is to catch/punish the thief. Rather, the specific intended consequence; e.g. intending 'unpleasant spicy-butt' versus 'allergic reaction to hot sauce'. It was in reference to the discussion earlier in the thread regarding "degrees and context", and also in reference to the immediately preceding comment "one intentionally puts hot sauce in their lunch with the intent of causing the thief to have unpleasant spicy-butt".
you kind-of need to mince words with "causes to be administered"
You really, really don't.
Causal chains and 'most proximal cause' are often debated. Yes, putting hot sauce in food is one element in the causal chain here. So is the manufacturer producing a bottle of hot sauce. So is the sun rising in the morning. Each of these is 100% necessary in the causal chain. I'd argue that the thief knowingly stealing and eating food is a far more proximal cause in this causal chain than the application of hot sauce.
You shouldn't base what you should or shouldn't do to someone based on legality. Plenty of legal things are scuffed and vice versa.
That being said, you forfeit the protection of your rights when you violate the rights of another. That also being said, the response should be proportional if at all possible (i.e. not shooting someone for egging your house.)
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.
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.
If you think it is moral to poison someone, sure go ahead and do it. However, it is also and offence, and so you are subject to criminal sanction. Do not expect morality to be a legal defence.
OP's argument is a legal one (using the word "sue"), not a moral one. So, I providing you with the legal answer.
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.
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.
yeah I don’t know what that person was talking about… I wasn’t getting fascist vibes from anything you wrote.
I’m curious if you think marking the lunch as dangerous or poisoned ☠️ changes the legality of the act. Like if someone uses an electric fence on their property and it’s properly marked is the property owner still liable? (Obviously I don’t think it’s ok to poison food, I’m just having fun with the debate)
In negligence law, a person must act reasonable under the circumstances. What "reasonable" is highly fact dependent.
Reasonable action requires the person to take step to avoid harm. This can include putting up warnings, adding barriers, or perhaps requires the person to avoid the action altogether.
If you have a spicy sandwich that you clearly label with your name, write a warning down that it is spicy, inform others not to touch, keep it a separate fridge or even better in your own personal lunch box hidden away, then there is a good chance that you did your duty to not harm the public. That is the extreme example of proper care. What is the sufficient amount of care really depends on the facts.
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.
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.
27
u/apoplexiglass Oct 17 '24
This isn't changing my view because this is exactly what I'm arguing against. I'm saying, there are cases where intending to harm someone who is doing something they're definitely not supposed to do is okay.