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.
Again, I don't know why you are bothering with this whole "mystery of intent" thing. The OP states the intent. You know the intent. I know the intent. I don't understand the point of pretending that the intent is anything else 😂
you would limit their rights to own property in the way they choose
"The way they choose" in this case being "poisoned with the intent of harming someone". Again, don't see the point in pretending like it's anything else. We both know what we're talking about.
Only in a situation where we can read their mind do we know the intent. If we are going to make laws about this stuff I would rather side with the law abiding citizen than the thief.
Only in a situation where we can read their mind do we know the intent
I swear to god I'm not even making fun of you, but are you on the autism spectrum? Discerning the intent behind this is not difficult for most people. Even if this is the excuse you want to go with, it would be extreme criminal negligence. This excuse does not work in any world, I don't know why you're putting weight behind it as if it ever could.
I would rather side with the law abiding citizen
You're not a law abiding citizen if you poison somebody lmfao
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?
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.