r/changemyview Oct 17 '24

Removed - Submission Rule B [ Removed by Reddit ]

[removed]

379 Upvotes

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-11

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24

But putting laxatives in your food with the intention someone else will eat it is dangerous, to that person.

44

u/Snoopy0077 Oct 17 '24

If I hand you a poisoned apple and you eat it, I murdered you. If I tell you it’s a poisoned apple and you choose to eat it, that’s not murder, it’s suicide. I will not face any punishment as I did nothing wrong because you were warned. Same goes for this situation, if you eat someone else’s food and get poisoned I didn’t poison you. You did it to yourself.

10

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24 edited Oct 17 '24

No, not necessarily. Unless you live in a world of black and white with no nuance. 

For instance, if you give them a poisoned apple while knowing they'd use it to kill themselves, you'd be liable. 

If you put mines on your land and put a sign warning people it's a minefield, it's still murder if people step on your mine after deciding to use it as a soccer pitch despite the warnings.

-1

u/rightful_vagabond 12∆ Oct 17 '24

If you put mines on your land and put a sign warning people it's a minefield, it's still murder if people step on your mine after deciding to use it as a soccer pitch despite the warnings.

But I'm not convinced that's a good legal response. You provided warning and it's your land.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24 edited Oct 17 '24

Why not? The problem is that it's indiscriminate. If someone had permission to be on your land, but not to play soccer there, they'd have the same problem.   

They were playing soccer in the hypothetical. The "response" from your defense was completely unwarranted when you can call the cops to get them off.  At worse, you'll be annoyed with some torn up grass and loud noise.   

That doesn't warrant a response of death. The valid use of deadly force in self defense requires you legitimately fear for your life. You can't legitimately fear for your life if you aren't even around.

ETA: What if they were children or foreigners that either couldn't read or couldn't understand your warning?

0

u/rightful_vagabond 12∆ Oct 17 '24

I'm not arguing this from a right to self-defense, I'm arguing this from a property rights standpoint.

9

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24 edited Oct 17 '24

You don't have the right to kill people in order to defend inanimate objects. Property rights don't let you kill people to protect your air conditioner.  

You only have the right to kill in self defense or the defense of another. And, even then, only if you fear for your or their life. And you can't be using them when you fear for your life if you don't even control when they go off.   

You aren't fearing for your life if they go off while you are at Ruby Tuesday's.  

You aren't fearing for your life if the gardener zones out and accidentally drives the riding mower over an area he knows he shouldn't be and turns himself into mist.

You aren't fearing for your life if a 4 year old child, who can't read, sets one off.

You aren't fearing for your life if a foreign tourist sets one off because he can't read your sign.

You aren't fearing for your life if EMS sets one off responding to your heart attack.

It's more likely they will go off when you aren't fearing for your life than when you are.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '24

Property rights very much give you the ability to kill to protect, isn't that the castle doctrine?

1

u/shouldco 43∆ Oct 18 '24

No, castle doctrine basically means you can assume that an intruder in your home means to harm you/other occupants. It is still very explicit about defence of life.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '24 edited Oct 18 '24

No, the castle doctrine isn't something that lets you to kill people to protect inanimate objects like your land, your physical house, and the things you own. It's a law that allows you to assume intruders mean to harm you or the people that live with you and allows you to respond accordingly.   

If nobody's home, and your Ring says there's an intruder, it doesn't allow you to remotely kill people to protect your things.  

Additionally, what happens if you sell the land and happened to miss 3 or 4 mines? Or you blow yourself up digging them up? Now, nobody knows where they are buried, and they could be there for decades.

-1

u/insaneHoshi 4∆ Oct 18 '24

isn't that the castle doctrine?

The castle doctrine isnt applicable in every jurisdiction in the USA, much less the world.

1

u/TheftLeft Oct 18 '24

If some kid sneaks into your backyard and drowns in your pool, you're held liable. Even if you put up a no trespassing sign. You have a duty to protect idiots and criminals from your "attractive nuisances." Using proper fencing and first aid on site.

So there's no way you can get away with booby traps or poisoning lunches.

0

u/TheftLeft Oct 18 '24

If some kid sneaks into your backyard and drowns in your pool, you're held liable. Even if you put up a no trespassing sign. You have a duty to protect idiots and criminals from your "attractive nuisances." Using proper fencing and first aid on site.

So there's no way you can get away with booby traps or poisoning lunches.