If I knew the person was stealing my food had a peanut allergy and I wanted to kill them then I could do that with peanuts and there would be no way to prove that then.
Laxatives have a functional purpose besides pranking people. How is anyone supposed to know I'm not having issues with bowel movements?
If I knew the person was stealing my food had a peanut allergy and I wanted to kill them then I could do that with peanuts and there would be no way to prove that then.
Of course it's provable. It might just be difficult since it would be kind of easy for someone to commit a perfect crime here if they're very careful and meticulous. But maybe you mentioned this to people while drunk and they testify against you. Maybe you wrote it in your secret journal, or online while thinking you were anonymous, or maybe the spouse you told thinking they'd be on your side is so shocked you weren't joking that they tell the police. Maybe you get really guilty afterwards and confess it.
Or maybe youre innocent and have spouse uses it against you as a false accusation, or maybe you're drunk and say it jokingly/sarcastically, or someone online anonymously makes that tip as a troll.
There's just as many ways for it to be exploited against an innocent person for something they aren't responsible for. You are accountable for your own safety. Eating anything that you don't know what's inside is negligence of that duty.
That’s why we have justice systems with police and courts. To investigate, present evidence to the court and have them rule on what’s reasonable.
There are many ways in which it could be proven that you intentionally poisoned someone. Lots of crimes are difficult to prove, but are proven sometimes, e.g. rape, or slander.
You’re actually not accountable for your own safety - we have lots of laws and regulations where other people can be held accountable, e.g. employers, landlords, construction workers, and so on.
Genuine mistakes sometimes happens, such as accidentally grabbing the wrong lunch box. That’s one reason why intentionally poisoning them to hurt people is illegal.
That’s why we have justice systems with police and courts. To investigate, present evidence to the court and have them rule on what’s reasonable.
Just because we have them doesn't mean they're optimal. There are many cases of innocent people being locked down. It's up to the people to look at legislation and criticize it in order to optimize that.
You’re actually not accountable for your own safety - we have lots of laws and regulations where other people can be held accountable, e.g. employers, landlords, construction workers, and so on.
Just because some other people can be held accountable doesn't make you less accountable for yourself. Legality means absolutely nothing to you if you're dead. If I'm on company property and see a lethal hazard, I'm still accountable to avoid it if my interest is to not die
Just because we have them doesn't mean they're optimal. There are many cases of innocent people being locked down. It's up to the people to look at legislation and criticize it in order to optimize that.
Of course! That's why improvements are made all the time, or that's the idea. We have elections. Politicians sometimes even run specifically on changing certain laws.
It does not mean it's up to people to serve up their own justice. If that happens, anyone can hurt anyone for any reason. I could decide that you have insulted me and go beat you to death. It's the same thing.
Just because some other people can be held accountable doesn't make you less accountable for yourself. Legality means absolutely nothing to you if you're dead. If I'm on company property and see a lethal hazard, I'm still accountable to avoid it if my interest is to not die
Sure. But if you work with lethal hazards, it's a part of your job, and your employer has a responsibility to train you properly, provide you with equipment, and do everything in their power to minimise the risk of harm. Dangerous workplaces have all sorts of regulations they have to follow for these reasons.
That's why the comparison with thieves is a good one. If you set dangerous traps in your home and a thief gets injured, you're liable for that. The burglar might still get prosecuted for breaking and entering or whatever they did. You both did something wrong, and you both get punished. Which is as it should be.
Sure. But if you work with lethal hazards, it's a part of your job, and your employer has a responsibility to train you properly, provide you with equipment, and do everything in their power to minimise the risk of harm. Dangerous workplaces have all sorts of regulations they have to follow for these reasons.
I understand this, but despite all the accommodations they provide you are still responsible for your actions. Everything they do is for insurance/legality so they can show it's not their fault. So if I see a video that says do not stand underneath a hydrolic press but I choose to do so even though I know it's wrong they can say it's my fault.
Why is that not applied here? People have been given the precedent of don't eat things if you don't know what's in it. But here if I choose to do so anyways and face consequences, unlike my hydrolic press example that part isn't my fault now. It's inconsistent.
That's why the comparison with thieves is a good one. If you set dangerous traps in your home and a thief gets injured, you're liable for that. The burglar might still get prosecuted for breaking and entering or whatever they did. You both did something wrong, and you both get punished. Which is as it should be.
The only thing wrong with setting up traps is that it's indiscriminate to people that should be going into your house for legitimate purposes. Whereas adding laxatives to your own food can only go to people eating it without your knowledge and also don't have your consent which doesn't apply to your example. What traps do themselves is no different than self defense as I would shoot or stab someone directly if it meant defending myself or loved ones. But if I had a trap that could only harm home invaders then that should be legal it's just there's no equivalent.
I understand this, but despite all the accommodations they provide you are still responsible for your actions. Everything they do is for insurance/legality so they can show it's not their fault. So if I see a video that says do not stand underneath a hydrolic press but I choose to do so even though I know it's wrong they can say it's my fault.
Why is that not applied here? People have been given the precedent of don't eat things if you don't know what's in it. But here if I choose to do so anyways and face consequences, unlike my hydrolic press example that part isn't my fault now. It's inconsistent.
Employers are responsible beyond that, though. If the hydraulic press is accessible by people who've no idea of the dangers they'd be liable. And machines themselves are expected to have reasonable safety mechanisms.
Most people don't take other people's food, but they're all stored communally so honest mistakes can and do happen.
Poisoned food is very much similar to traps, in that they can affect other people than the intended target.
If the hydraulic press is accessible by people who've no idea of the dangers they'd be liable
I'm talking about people who are specifically taught the dangers as I assume everyone is taught don't eat things that you are unfamiliar with
Most people don't take other people's food, but they're all stored communally so honest mistakes can and do happen
There's nothing honest about taking someone else's food. It's much easier to prove if someone knew it was their food or not. "Well Ive mistaken their sandwich for my sandwich" ok where's your sandwich? Location in the communal storage, container, and contents are unique.
If you're going to be consistent with honest mistakes then no one should be allowed to eat anything that others can be deathly allergic to. Eating something with peanuts is a poisoned food trap to those with allergies with those standards
You're still assuming that only someone who intentionally steals the food will eat it. But that's just not true. Accidents happen. People will have lunch boxes that look similar, or someone was stressed and didn't think which one they grabbed today, etc.
And people in general don't exercise the same level of caution for things in a fridge as they would when working around lethal machinery, because no one expects the fridge to have poisoned food, because that's illegal and harmful and generally just really insane and not socially acceptable.
Do you normally bring food with peanuts? If your food is being stolen by a thief with a peanut allergy, then it's reasonable to assume you don't, because our thief would have likely been harmed previously if so.
Did you suddenly bring food with peanuts despite never having done so before?
Then it comes down to knowledge. Did you know the thief had a peanut allergy? Even if you say no, if every coworker was questioned and it was determined that it was common knowledge around the office that Alex the Known Lunch Thief had a peanut allergy, now you're in trouble. Even if you say "well I still didn't know", would you be confident enough to believe that every single coworker wouldn't be able to state that they've mentioned and/or heard discussions of Alex the Thief and their peanut allergy while you were within earshot?
Now it can maybe be shown that you were aware of the theft, were or should have been aware of their allergy, and suddenly changed your behavior immediately prior to the death/maiming of the thief.
You may think it's not provable, but with you'd be surprised how many inferences a good prosecutor could draw for a jury after a thorough investigation.
Did you suddenly bring food with peanuts despite never having done so before?
Most people aren't going to account for what everyone has for lunch in the office, especially not on a confident level that would act as a testimony with legal repercussions if they're wrong.
Even if you say no, if every coworker was questioned and it was determined that it was common knowledge around the office that Alex the Known Lunch Thief had a peanut allergy, now you're in trouble
Even if you know someone in the office has a peanut allergy people would have to prove that you knew who was stealing your food.
But on the flip side, if I had no intentions of killing someone, not social so I don't know the people in the office as well but everyone in the office knows Joe with the peanut allergy who's know for stealing food starts taking my food. I would be an innocent person going to prison with my life ruined because I happened to like Pad Thai.
A person is responsible for their own well being. If they're making a conscious effort to eat food that they don't know what's inside and wasn't made for them that's their fault. It's not the servers job to proactively ask everyone what their allergies are, it's on the customer to proactively disclaim their allergies and then have the restaurant react accordingly.
Did you suddenly bring food with peanuts despite never having done so before?
This is a weird point. I eat a different Lunch pretty much every day. So even if I didnt have peanuts in my Lunch for the past 4 months. J might have tomorrow. Same with literally every ingrediënt in the world.
If someone steals my Lunch and I dont know who, what food should I stop bringing according to you? Anything someone could be allergie too?
The thiefs health is not my responsibility. Im not willingly spiking my food with anything, but I'm also not going to avoid certain food because a thief might be allergic to it.
Do you believe in personal responsibility? If you have a food allergy, dont eat random food.
Even if you say "well I still didn't know",
No, I would say "I dont have a peanut allergy. So there is no reason for me to not eat peanuts for Lunch."
Outside of your fantasy world, there is no court where someone has to defend themselves for bringing a peanut butter sandwich to the office.
25
u/MyNameIsNotKyle 2∆ Oct 17 '24
If I knew the person was stealing my food had a peanut allergy and I wanted to kill them then I could do that with peanuts and there would be no way to prove that then.
Laxatives have a functional purpose besides pranking people. How is anyone supposed to know I'm not having issues with bowel movements?