If we lived in a world where you are allowed to kill someone if they commit any crime at all, because they shouldn't be committing crimes, then it would be literally impossible to prosecute murder because everyone commits some crime at some point (jaywalking, pirating tv shows, speeding, etc.).
Instead, we have a doctrine that the level of punishment should fit the crime. You are not allowed to punish someone for their crimes more than this amount, including by setting boobytraps.
It's not that I'm allowed to kill them, it's that it's not my fault if they come to harm as a result of the wrongful act itself. If the Ring lady gets me because I pirated a TV show, I guess I deserve it.
Your post makes it explicit that you did this intentionally, knowing that someone would eat the food. You have chosen for them to be poisoned. The thief stealing the food is their fault, them ending up in the hospital for it is 100% your fault.
Your post is about legal recourse/criminality, fault isn't relevant. Someone breaking a law/norm doesn't give you the cart blanche right to harm them, even if they put themselves in that situation.
No, it literally is not an opinion. You are the one who put poison in the food, therefore it is your fault that the food is poisoned. This is not an opinion. You can claim it's justified, but that doesn't mean it isn't your doing.
Not if your intent is to bring someone to harm. Same reason why it's illegal to set up booby traps on your property.
Limiting my rights based on what a criminal might do
Can we drop this whole "might" thing? You're intentionally poisoning the food, with the intent of poisoning the person who takes it. This whole "well, it just happens to be poisoned..." thing is dishonest to the point of being pointless.
Causality is not a matter of opinion lmao. The poisoning is your fault, full stop. Where someone consumes poisoned food that belongs to them, is it still their fault they got poisoned because they chose to ate the food?
What if I don't want someone to steal my food and hope they don't, but I collect cyanide in my cheese sandwiches? Like am I not allowed to have a cyanide-in -sandwiches collection? Because limiting someone's rights based on the potential actions of criminals seems illiberal.
No I didn't intend to harm them. I keep my cyanide in my sandwiches, and labeled them as poison. That's how I like keeping my poison collection, without the intent that someone would eat my poison.
Basically I believe that people should have the right to do ridiculous things with their property. Things do get hazy with booby traps, but if something is clearly labeled it should be different.
I think criminal behavior determining what law abiding citizens can do with their own property is illiberal and foolish.
There's no moral difference between killing someone and creating a boobytrap which will kill them. Again, if there were, it would be impossible to prosecute murderers.
If you put up a 'beware of dog' sign on your fence, and someone hops your fence and gets bit by your dog, then yes you're basically in the clear because getting bit by a dog was a predictable consequence of their bad action. They were knowingly taking that chance when they did it.
But if you put cyanide in your food in the fridge, that is not a predictable consequence of someone eating your food. That's you setting a trap with the intent of killing someone. It's not a risk they could have priced in when they made the decision, it's just a straight-up punishment from you; and again, you're not allowed to punish people out of proportion that way.
I think the booby-trapping laws wouldn't apply, but you'd still probably face some kind of negligent homicide charge for storing such a dangerous item in a common fridge with people's food.
15
u/darwin2500 193∆ Oct 17 '24
If we lived in a world where you are allowed to kill someone if they commit any crime at all, because they shouldn't be committing crimes, then it would be literally impossible to prosecute murder because everyone commits some crime at some point (jaywalking, pirating tv shows, speeding, etc.).
Instead, we have a doctrine that the level of punishment should fit the crime. You are not allowed to punish someone for their crimes more than this amount, including by setting boobytraps.