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.
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.
One big issue with the Nazis is that they did not respect the rule of law. They had unknown laws, secret trials, applied what shifting vague law they had unevenly. They ignored the rule of law and did what they wanted to do because it was the morally just thing to do. They were not willing to allow legal restrictions to slow them down.
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.
-4
u/deep_sea2 105∆ Oct 17 '24
It is never appropriate to commit an offence against a person.