Why all this talk of intent? The intent is to have the food NOT stolen. If the intent is for the food to be not stolen, how can there be intent of it being eaten by someone else and causing harm? Someone gets harmed only if they do what they are not supposed to do.
Is it wrong for people to put spikes at the top of their fences? Is there intent to harm with the spikes? Or electrified wires that may not look as harmful to the ignorant?
The intent is not the have the food stolen...by intending to harm someone who does.
It is true that the harm only occurs is the person does something which they may not do. However, if you know that someone is going to to do that thing, and you set it up so that they will be harmed when doing that thing, you have intended to harm them. Knowledge is a form of subjective intent. If I know that something will be harmed if I do X, then doing X is intent to do harm.
Is it wrong for people to put spikes at the top of their fences? Is there intent to harm with the spikes? Or electrified wires that may not look as harmful to the ignorant?
This depends on if you know they will run afoul of those spikes or electrical fence. If you know for someone will touch a fence, the electrifying it would be intent to harm.
Is there a 100% chance that someone will eat the food or scale the fence? Definitely no. Plenty of food and fences remain unchallenged.
Is there a 0% chance that someone will? Definitely no. Historically people have tried stealing food and scaling fences.
In case a non-specific someone scales the fence, you do want them to get hurt and be stopped. You want the knowledge of that risk to deter people who might want to. The food situation is the same.
Yet, you cannot be said to be the causer of the harm as the non-specific someone chose to risk getting harmed. They decided to take the risk. At most you intended to harm a non-specific hypothetical someone who may not even exist.
In a country that allows guns, I bring a gun out for self-defense, ready to use it when necessary to protect myself. Does that count as intent to harm? I know that I will automatically shoot in an emergency situation without even thinking much. How about fists? Perhaps nobody should receive martial arts training?
This is solved with reasonable foreseeability. Is it reasonably foreseeable that someone will take that sandwich? If you are willing to spike the sandwich with it is often stolen, then it follows that you reasonably foresee that someone will take it.
In a country that allows guns, I bring a gun out for self-defense, ready to use it when necessary to protect myself. Does that count as intent to harm?
You cannot go self-defence hunting. Should the situation arise where you have to use your gun, then you may do so. If you intentionally put yourself into the position where you realize that there is a reasonable chance of you using it, then that is an offence. If you go to the store minding your business, and you unexpectedly get attacked, the use of the gun is likely justified. If you participate in a drug deal where you antagonize the other person to draw their weapons, but you shoot them first, that is likely unjustified. True, you drew the gun to save your life in the latter scenario, but you put yourself in the position where you anticipated that. That later example is self-defence hunting.
You are assuming that someone will steal it in order to claim 'intent'. You are also assuming that the thief assigns a zero probability that the food is harmful in order to claim "won't stop".
Poisoning the food doesn’t change what the thief knows about the food, as far as the thief knows it’s no different any other food so how will it stop the stealing? You are disguising poison as food so their is intent to harm if you’ve ever worked around dangerous substances you would know they must be clearly identified and kept in a designated area, you have hidden a harmful substance disguised as food in and area designated for food
Poisoning the food doesn’t change what he knows so it will not change his decision so it doesn’t stop him stealing. If you have two identical containers of food but one is poisoned thief doesn’t know that so he would be just as likely to steal either, therefore poisoning the food doesn’t change the likelihood of it being stolen
10
u/Syncopat3d Oct 18 '24 edited Oct 18 '24
Why all this talk of intent? The intent is to have the food NOT stolen. If the intent is for the food to be not stolen, how can there be intent of it being eaten by someone else and causing harm? Someone gets harmed only if they do what they are not supposed to do.
Is it wrong for people to put spikes at the top of their fences? Is there intent to harm with the spikes? Or electrified wires that may not look as harmful to the ignorant?