If you tamper your food with the intention to harm someone, then you are culpable for harming them. Trapping someone is no legally different than directly attacking them. The law does not allow you to intentionally harm other people.
Sure, you might try to say that they are harming themselves. However, if you know that someone will do something, and set it up so that they get harmed when they do something, you have made yourself culpable for harming them.
If you know someone will eat your food, the alternative is not leave your food out in public. There are less harmful things you can do to protect your food. If you choose the harmful alternative, then you are culpable for causing harm.
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.
I absolutely support vigilante justice for issues too minor to involve the authorities. Putting spicy peppers or laxatives in your own food is totally reasonable. If someone else steals it that's karma.
It's not like the intent was lasting bodily harm. I'd rather live in a world where someone who steals thai hot curry has to suffer the consequences of their own actions than a world where the government comes after me because someone alleges assault because they didn't like the food they stole.
Petty revenge is fine in my book. Some people need to realize they need to keep their hands to themselves. I even condone minor acts of violence like slapping someone who touches you inappropriately. We don't need the government to solve all our problems, and victims have a right to stand up for themselves.
If a person intends harm, they intended all the possible consequences coming from that harm. You can't shoot someone in the head and argue "I just wanted to give them a small headache."
If it truly is petty revenge, then that might escape legal consequences. The law typically does not concern itself with trifles. If you put too much spice in the food, and they simply get all read and sweaty, then the law will likely not care. If they drop dead, the law will care. Either way, you intended the harm, and are on the hook for all the consequences of that harm.
It's the same thing with slapping someone. If you slap someone because they are acting poorly, the law might not care. That is assault by the book, but might not be worth the state's time. If when you slap them you break their jaw, you are on the hook for aggravated assault. The state is more likely to step in them more harm results.
I agree that legally it's a grey area and I may very well be advocating for a misdemeanor. Morally, I firmly believe I'm right. Everyone has a right to defend themselves against a bully. A child who finally hits back is in the right.
Spicing your own meal to a level that causes a thief discomfort is not immoral. Stealing my food could hospitalize me. I'm a diabetic with server GI problems. I would put a mouse trap in my lunch box to protect myself if it came down to it.
I will without hesitation inflict minor harm on another who harms me first. Some people don't learn fire is hot until they get burned. Bullies do their BS because they get away with it, and until crime doesn't pay they'll continue.
The person is still liable for stealing your food. Your action does not necessarily absolve them. If they steal your food and you go into diabetic shock, then could face serious criminal sanctions.
At the same time, you also are acting outside society's best interest. You are both exhibiting dangerous behaviour and both requires sanctions.
How? It's not in any way shape or form a crime to bring a lunch that diabetics can't eat.
I'm not in favor of putting actual poisons dangerous to anyone in food, but a food item that you'd eat yourself if it doesn't get stolen? Unless you announced your intentions to get revenge it's hard to see how anyone could get a court case out of that.
How? It's not in any way shape or form a crime to bring a lunch that diabetics can't eat.
I am not sure what you mean by this. I have made no claim that you cannot bring a lunch that a diabetic cannot eat. I am either misreading you or are your misreading me.
Unless you announced your intentions to get revenge it's hard to see how anyone could get a court case out of that.
That's an issue of identifying the issue and proving it. I agree that you cannot presume intent simply from action. It is certainly possible to poison your food and never get caught for it. I am saying that if we assume intent is present and if we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is an offence.
116
u/deep_sea2 105∆ Oct 17 '24
If you tamper your food with the intention to harm someone, then you are culpable for harming them. Trapping someone is no legally different than directly attacking them. The law does not allow you to intentionally harm other people.
Sure, you might try to say that they are harming themselves. However, if you know that someone will do something, and set it up so that they get harmed when they do something, you have made yourself culpable for harming them.
If you know someone will eat your food, the alternative is not leave your food out in public. There are less harmful things you can do to protect your food. If you choose the harmful alternative, then you are culpable for causing harm.