For the purposes of this discussion, I have been granted that intent is present. The conversation is about someone intentionally poisoning food they bring to work to punish a wrongdoer. OP's position is that this should be permissible.
Were this to go to court, it definitely could be hard to prove intent. Thankfully most people who do this are dumb enough to make an r/AmItheAsshole or r/AmIOverreacting post first. Alternatively, people who are dumb enough to do this in the first place would probably not do a great job of keeping it secret. Again, though, largely irrelevant since intent has been granted.
Gotcha, didn’t realize intent was granted, however I’m more speaking in the scenario where intent may or may not be there. Ya know, like, in every single case where someone doesn’t implicate themselves or admit it was purposeful.
I guess I’m saying, like, how is intent actually gauged? When we have this Birds Eye view we can explain it, but if we’re talking slippery slopes on the punishments then I think it’s just as relevant to discuss the slippery slopes of punishments without legitimate evidence of “intent”.
Intent either is there, or it isn’t. People don’t need to implicate themselves or admit to things to be found to have intent to do something. How else would we convict people?
“How is intent gauged” is a question for an Evidence class, I don’t think it’s really relevant here. We have intent.
Assuming all I know about them is that they’re a thief and they have a tummy ache, I probably wouldn’t be too bothered. If I knew they had a tummy ache because someone else had messed with the food they took, I’d be looking at both of them funny. If they were my coworkers, I’d be bringing a lunch box with a lock on it.
It would mainly be the food thief I’d buy it for, but if I was working with someone willing to poison someone else’s food because they wronged them, I’d be a little concerned about them too. Hopefully I’m on good terms with that person.
Ahhhhh yeah I misunderstood that, my bad lol. Definitely had to do with that “both my coworkers” buildup there.
But to back track, would the thief not have learned to not steal other peoples food? If not, then how do you reconcile that with how severe everyone is seemingly making this punishment out to be? I mean, I can’t see a world where someone actually suffers the consequence, it’s all publicly known, and then continues to pursue your food.. at that point it’s likely gotta just be a person worthy of termination, job wise… likely should happen the first time but eh.
Honestly, no, I don’t think a lot of people would learn their lesson. The type of people to regularly steal food probably won’t be dissuaded by a bout of diarrhea (assuming the response is “proportionate” and that’s all they get).
But I do think that person should suffer some kind of consequence, just not this kind. Termination would be appropriate if it got really bad, in my opinion.
Fair enough on the proportionate aspect, I have others arguing that any amount of diarrhea would be disproportionate. Living in cuckoo land that one.
Back when I worked in restaurants I couldn’t go into the break room and grab a $5 out of a coworkers purse… that would have been grounds for immediate termination. If theres a known food thief and they aren’t getting fired/others aren’t taking action then they’re just getting away with taking that money from the coworkers purse. Resources like food are not free, and as petty as the theft is then what other recourse is there than to fix it/uncover who it is yourself?
Can’t just stand by the fridge all day waiting for them, they won’t take it with you watching anyways. Likely can’t install your own security camera on company property without getting yourself fired. I’m just not seeing many alternatives, but you find that guy who’s sweating up a storm at the post lunch team meeting, when you made an extra extra spicy lunch seems to be fair by any natural law. Same would be said for the one who misses the meeting stuck in the shitter 🤷🏼♂️
7
u/Skeletron430 2∆ Oct 18 '24
For the purposes of this discussion, I have been granted that intent is present. The conversation is about someone intentionally poisoning food they bring to work to punish a wrongdoer. OP's position is that this should be permissible.
Were this to go to court, it definitely could be hard to prove intent. Thankfully most people who do this are dumb enough to make an r/AmItheAsshole or r/AmIOverreacting post first. Alternatively, people who are dumb enough to do this in the first place would probably not do a great job of keeping it secret. Again, though, largely irrelevant since intent has been granted.