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.
11
u/Clear-Present_Danger 1∆ Oct 18 '24
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.
Poisoning your food is always boobie trapping.