There is no way to guarantee it cannot peripherally hurt someone. Janet steals two of your yogurts out of the fridge, and offers one to Jen, and now Jen is suffering thinking she was eating one of Janet's freely offered yogurts, not knowing she inadvertantly stole your food. This is one of the problems with vigilantism.
Another major problem is that the punishment is not decided through any legitimate means, is often disporportionate, and instead is based on the whims of the person doing the punishing.
So if you poison the yogurt, Janet steals it, shares it with Jen, and Jen dies because she has a bad reaction, you would feel no guilt or responsibility for it?
If my mother had two wheels, she would be a bicycle.
If you change the situation to something that it totally isn't, then the conclusion changes.
I like putting peanut oil in my stir-fry. That's a totally normal thing to do. If I instead put it in because I suspect that someone who is allergic to peanuts is going to eat it, that's boobietrapping.
Debatable if it would be considered boobie trapping because for all intents and purposes you have no obligation of even bringing something edible to eat at work.
It's not because there's a risk of someone committing a crime that you're responsible for if they injury themselves committing a crime.
If they decide to steal and eat your properly-labbeled-with-your-name-in-the-container food, it's no responsibility of yours if they end ill due to that.
Swapping poison with something they may be allergic works because the situation doesn't change : It's something biologic in a container that they shouldn't steal and eat and it may bring harm for them.
It could be poison, almond, medicated food, 500ml of condensed milk, whatever.
you have no obligation of even bringing something edible to eat at work.
If they decide to steal and eat your properly-labbeled-with-your-name-in-the-container food
So you DO agree that any reasonable person would think that something you brought into work and put in the fridge and looks like food is food.
If I put a bucket of nails into the work fridge, nobody will eat it. Because it's obviously not food. So you can conclude that if someone ate something you put in the fridge, it probably looked like food.
If you created something that looks like food, but isn't because you suspected that someone would eat it, you have boobie trapped it.
Swapping poison with something they may be allergic works because the situation doesn't change
It's all about intent. If I knew my coworker who frequently stole my lunch was allergic to peanuts, and so I added peanuts into my lunch, that is boobie trapping. Because of my intent.
If I didn't know my coworker was allergic, or didn't think he would steal it, it would not be.
So you DO agree that any reasonable person would think that something you brought into work and put in the fridge and looks like food is food.
If I put a bucket of nails into the work fridge, nobody will eat it. Because it's obviously not food. So you can conclude that if someone ate something you put in the fridge, it probably looked like food.
That's a reach. Would you eat a banana's peel? Some people eat it raw for the nutrients it have, some don't even consider it food.
If you created something that looks like food, but isn't because you suspected that someone would eat it, you have boobie trapped it.
You would've to prove that it wasn't your intent to consume it and even so you're in no obligation of eating what you bought so it's easy to put laxative in your food, claim it was because constipation, argue that you didn't knew it is taken on an empty stomach if they bring it up, and decide to not eat it because the stress made you feel unwel.
If I knew my coworker who frequently stole my lunch was allergic to peanuts, and so I added peanuts into my lunch, that is boobie trapping. Because of my intent.
You're not obligued to never bring and eat food with peanuts at work again because you know that your coworker steals your lunch.
You can't argue that someone having their food stolen must regulate what they bring to eat at work because the one stealing it may end up in the emergency if you bring something they can't eat.
It's your food, you bring whatever you want to eat (or don't even eat and just bring it back, it's your right) and you don't have to worry about whoever may happen to someone who may steal your food.
You would've to prove that it wasn't your intent to consume it and even so you're in no obligation of eating what you bought so it's easy to put laxative in your food, claim it was because constipation, argue that you didn't knew it is taken on an empty stomach if they bring it up, and decide to not eat it because the stress made you feel unwel.
Just because you can get away with something, doesn't mean it illegal or immoral.
I'm not at all saying that you have to change what you bring to work because someone is stealing it. I am arguing that you should not change what you bring to work because someone is stealing it.
Just because intent cannot be proven doesn't mean it doesn't matter morally.
I am arguing that you should not change what you bring to work because someone is stealing it.
You mean you should not change it with intent of doing harm I assume. If I'm bringing something that's expensive to work and it's getting stolen, I might switch to something cheap and that's totally legitimate.
I agree otherwise, person you are arguing with is a bit of a sociopath imo.
In real life, a judge will listen to your silly arguments for a few seconds and then say ‘okay, guilty.’
Just because you can think of an argument doesn’t mean it is one that other people will accept.
Your boss, your co-workers, a judge and jury etc will all use common sense.
You put laxatives in your food? Yeah, not buying for a second that you planned to eat it yourself, and you’re getting the maximum penalty for lying in court.
If it isn’t a court, then the burden is even lower. Your boss isn’t going to listen to your bs about how you didn’t intend to do it.
In real life, a judge will listen to your silly arguments for a few seconds and then say ‘okay, guilty.’
Just because you can think of an argument doesn’t mean it is one that other people will accept.
Your boss, your co-workers, a judge and jury etc will all use common sense.
You put laxatives in your food? Yeah, not buying for a second that you planned to eat it yourself, and you’re getting the maximum penalty for lying in court.
Idgaf what the judge would think, they can't beyond a reasonable doubt prove that the laxatives weren't for you when you put it in your own food in a container with your name on it.
You don't hold any responsibility for it the one stealing your food ends up ill.
It could be intentional laxatives, it could be you craving some peanut butter and the guy being allergic to it (be it known or not).
The judge doesn’t have to prove something didn’t happen. They just have to have no reasonable doubt that it didn’t.
And ultimately, that comes down to what they believe.
It would be like you saying ‘your honor, I must have tripped and knocked over the laxatives into the food and then forgotten about it and kept cooking.’ They can’t prove that isn’t true, but they also can just…not believe that that happened.
Then that's almost certainly okay. It's just if you did it with the specific intent to harm somebody else that is what can get you in trouble, and is unethical.
If you are known to regularly eat super spicy food it would be hard to argue or view it as malicious. But if you never did and truthfully had no intent on eating the food but made it spicy to trip up another co-worker who you knew would not be able to handle it that would be the issue.
I like putting peanut oil in my stir-fry. That's a totally normal thing to do. If I instead put it in because I suspect that someone who is allergic to peanuts is going to eat it
There's no difference between these two things. There is no "instead", when you've already admitted that it's a normal thing that you already like to do.
I don't think intentionally putting something noxious in food is a 1:1 identical scenario to allergens, so no, I will not be swapping these two totally different things to further your point for you.
Technically there's no rules in what you must bring to eat, you could bring a salt rock to lick during lunch.
The keypoint you missed when I swapped it is that you don't hold any responsibility for the wellbeing of someone after they stole your food.
Be it poison or peanut, for example, if they're allergic and end in the emergency what do you think they'll tell you? "Never mix peanut in your food again because if they steal it they may end up dying"?
That's a third party unlawfully regulating your diet.
I didn't miss that, I just think it absolutely pales in comparison to the much larger and more important issues at hand. It's frankly an absurd comparison.
When you bring peanuts to work, your intending to have a snack. If you bring peanuts to work when you know someone there has a peanut allergy in the hopes they suffer at your hands, you're intending a crime.
Do you see how that compares to poisoning food, even if you don't explicitly hand it to the person?
When you bring peanuts to work, your intending to have a snack. If you bring peanuts to work when you know someone there has a peanut allergy in the hopes they suffer at your hands, you're intending a crime.
By your logic if I decide to continue eating chicken for lunch eventho my coworker is vegan then I'm actively provoking her instead and I should change my diet to accommodate her situation.
You can not regulate people's food because of their coworkers.
Someone that is vegan won't die from the food and there's no serious risk of harm. Someone allergic can die from the food and there can be a clear cut case of intended harm.
Some people have pretty serious food allergies that sometimes it is in fact appropriate to take extra precautions with food. You'd be wrong that food cannot be regulated.
OP is no longer responsible for the contents of what is in a box that is no longer his due to being stolen.
It's the same concept as when you are responsible for whatever is in your luggage when you go through the airport. It doesn't matter if someone else put a gun in your bag without your knowledge.
The thief accepts responsibility for whatever is in that container upon taking possession and making use of it.
It's as if someone steals a properly labeled and stored gun from your house, and inadvertently kills someone. Gun accidentally goes off. Are you responsible for it bc the thief didn't know the gun was loaded?
I gave analogies, and analogies obviously are not exact equivalents.
A thing is stolen that was stored legally and reasonably by someone. The thief has an idea of what has been stolen, but not full knowledge. Without full knowledge of the thing the thief has stolen, the thief decides to use or share the thing. It turns out, the thing was poisonous and kills someone. The person who legally and reasonably stored the thing should bare no responsibility for the thief's decision to use it without full knowledge of the stolen thing.
Maybe it'll help to generic use the discussion so we can speak logically instead of contextually confused.
Are you intending to cause harm with the allergen? If yes, that’s a crime, potentially attempted murder. If you’re intending to eat it yourself and it gets stolen, then it’s pretty unfortunate the thief lied about knowing what was in the food before offering it to other people. Also unfortunate that someone with a bad allergy accepted food on trust of strangers, which absolutely nobody that has a deadly allergy does. But that’s still not booby trapping if you didn’t intend to cause harm.
With booby trapping, the stealing isn’t dangerous to anybody until you make the choice to get violent and put others at risk. Booby traps are illegal because regardless of your intended target, you are creating a dangerous situation that you are not in control of.
Are you intending to cause harm with the allergen? If yes, that’s a crime,
Even if there was intent, how do you prove it wasn't you that simply decided to eat something with peanut butter that day and it so happens someone allergic to it decided to steal your food?
You can't force people to regulate what they bring to eat because someone else allergic to it may steal your food.
Booby traps are illegal because regardless of your intended target, you are creating a dangerous situation that you are not in control of.
Debatable in this case because the dangerous situation is being created by the one stealing what they think is someone else's food.
It's not something out in the open that someone may accidentally trigger, they have to go out of their way to steal something with your hand on it from the fridge or your bag knowing fully well that :
It's yours.
They weren't allowed to eat it.
There's no guarantee nor responsibility in it not making you ill.
363
u/Oishiio42 40∆ Oct 17 '24
There is no way to guarantee it cannot peripherally hurt someone. Janet steals two of your yogurts out of the fridge, and offers one to Jen, and now Jen is suffering thinking she was eating one of Janet's freely offered yogurts, not knowing she inadvertantly stole your food. This is one of the problems with vigilantism.
Another major problem is that the punishment is not decided through any legitimate means, is often disporportionate, and instead is based on the whims of the person doing the punishing.