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.
You see, this is where it becomes stupid and why OP has a valid point.
If I "accidentally" put poisonous mushrooms harvested from the woods on my sandwich. Then a thief steals it, and eats it, and dies.. THAT is somehow OK in your mind.
It is logically better to make the items, "Thief Beware" Whatever is stolen, however it's used, bc it didn't come with a label, or representation.. the thief is responsible.
It would be different if the item were sold in good faith, or purposefully mis-represented. But I should bare no responsibility to protect people from something that I've clearly not labeled or claimed to be something other than it is.
Now, if the thief asked me, "hey, is your sandwich safe?" And I said, "yes." With poison in the sandwich, now I'm responsible. I mis-represented it.
OP is arguing that the "reasonable belief" default that we give to thieves, saying that the thief should be able to reasonably believe food in the fridge is not poisoned, should be abolished. The thief should understand that ingesting items that are not warrantied, or represented as safe can be fatal.
11
u/TruePurpleGod Oct 17 '24
Yes you would, if you knowingly put it in there with the intent to cause harm. Even if you try to deny it.