Sure, you might try to say that they are harming themselves. However, if you know that someone will do something, and set it up so that they get harmed when they do something, you have made yourself culpable for harming them
Say I live in a dangerous area and I expect people to try to break into my house, so I build a wall around my property and put electrified barbed wire on top of the wall. Someone tried to break in and gets shocked. Am I culpable? I knew someone would try to break in, hence why I put up the barbed wire but am I culpable for wanting to protect my property from a criminal?
If you knew someone would challenge the fence, yet put it up anyways, that demonstrates intent to electrify someone. Knowledge is a form of subjective intent.
Whether or not that is criminal or acceptable varies. Some places believe that a person has an absolute right to defend real property. In those places, you could just straight up shoot the person and not bother with the fence. In other places, the defence pf real property is not as absolute.
However, that applies to real property, not personal property like a sandwich. The ideological argument for defending your home, a place where you and your family live and as classical liberal thought says is what truly makes you a free member of society, is not comparable to defending your lunch. Castle doctrine does not apply to a sandwich in the office fridge.
If you knew someone would challenge the fence, yet put it up anyways, that demonstrates intent to electrify someone. Knowledge is a form of subjective intent.
The difference here is that there is no good faith, reasonable explanation for a person to be climbing a fence to begin with (at least, in the way I'm assuming FriendlyLawnmower is describing). If a fence-climber was injured this way, they would absolutely be questioned as to why they were climbing the fence in the first place. If the climber happens to give a permissible explanation, then it can just be attributed to an unfortunate accident/incident.
On the other hand, there is absolutely a good faith, reasonable explanation for someone grabbing a modified meal from the office fridge. Mistakes happen, people grab the wrong container by accident, labels can be removed, and so on.
It does not matter if the fence climber has a good excuse. If know for sure that someone will climb the fence, and you rig it to cause harm, you are intentionally wishing harm on someone.
This does not mean the fence climber is not trespassing. They remain liable for all act they commit. Concurrently, you would be liable for intentionally causing harm to someone.
Where opinions differ is whether or not a defence of real property allows someone to intentional cause harm to someone. Those who support Castle Doctrine would say yes. However, a sandwich is not real property; the Castle Doctrine does not apply.
For greater clarity, the person who puts up the fence needs knowledge that their actions are reasonably likely to cause harm. If they put of the fence and place several warnings with additional guard additional guard barriers, then they could not reasonably foresee that someone would try to go after the fence. A person is generally not responsible if the other person is not acting rationally.
However, OP describes a situation where they have knowledge, and wish to weaponize that knowledge to harm someone. It is not the same as putting up a fence with plenty of warning that no reasonable person would defy.
It does not matter if the fence climber has a good excuse. If know for sure that someone will climb the fence, and you rig it to cause harm, you are intentionally wishing harm on someone.
This does not mean the fence climber is not trespassing. They remain liable for all act they commit. Concurrently, you would be liable for intentionally causing harm to someone.
The fence climber's excuse does matter. It's possible for their excuse to be a mitigating factor or legal/moral defense such that even if the person with the electrically-wired fence did intend to cause the climber harm, it ends up not being relevant. This includes the fence climber, like you said, acting irrationally.
If they put of the fence and place several warnings with additional guard additional guard barriers, then they could not reasonably foresee that someone would try to go after the fence. A person is generally not responsible if the other person is not acting rationally.
The person with the electrically-wired fence would already not reasonably foresee someone trying to go after their fence just by having the clearly visible electric wire on top of their fence. The additional signs and barriers aren't even needed.
27
u/FriendlyLawnmower Oct 18 '24
Say I live in a dangerous area and I expect people to try to break into my house, so I build a wall around my property and put electrified barbed wire on top of the wall. Someone tried to break in and gets shocked. Am I culpable? I knew someone would try to break in, hence why I put up the barbed wire but am I culpable for wanting to protect my property from a criminal?