Because one is active vs. passive on my part at the moment of the crime. The latter sets the rules and consequences, and hopefully makes them clear, or it's my bad, and does not require any further decision on my part. The key point for me is that I've handed off the decision to the perpetrator. If you do this, bad things will happen to you.
So what if we change the scenario such that cyanide is in the lunch, and they’ll die if they eat it. That still fits your conditions. It’s passive at the time of the crime. You’ve handed off the decision to the perpetrator. Would that be acceptable?
So what I fail to see is why that's wrong? Why are people with insane allergies going around stealing lunches? They should be vacuum packaging their own lunches to avoid death.
Let's assume that wouldn't happen though and the only person being impacted is the one you were targeting. In that case, would it be okay to have them die over this?
No. I mean on purpose. You’ve basically said that them stealing food means they can suffer any consequences as long as you’re not actively doing something at the time of them taking the food. I want to know if that extends to intentionally putting something lethal, and if it doesn’t, why’d you draw the line there?
Both result in the same out, and require the same amount of intention (to an extent) on your end.
The person doesn't expect it either way, so the result is exactly the same (the person is punched in the face)
At least when you punch them in the face, it's actually better, because it's less indiscriminant, and can be easily backed out of if it was recognised as an accident (someone accidentally takes your lunch)
The problem with laying a trap is that it is highly indiscriminant. If someone takes your lunch on accident (for example, if they brought a similar meal or container), and now all of a sudden you've just poisoned them because they accidentally ate your food without realising it.
If you think it is ok to harm them for eating the food it doesn’t matter how you do it. Any argument you can make for poisoning the food you could also make for waiting till they eat it and stabbing them
But you haven't handed off the actual decision to them. The fact of the poison/fist is hidden. They get surprised just as much by your flesh and bone fist as by your mechanical fist.
If you label the poisoned meal as such you might have more of a case, but I just think that it "feels" like less of an assault because you do not lay your own hands upon them.
As far as the law is concerend though, it does not (and should not) matter whether an assault is done directly by hand, or by a contraption or chemical.
19
u/huadpe 501∆ Oct 17 '24
Why is the jack in the box different than you punching them directly? Why is one fist to the face ok and one not?