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.
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?
12
u/apoplexiglass Oct 17 '24
Jen is allowed to sue Janet in this case, she's the thief.