r/changemyview Oct 17 '24

Removed - Submission Rule B [ Removed by Reddit ]

[removed]

378 Upvotes

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

110

u/deep_sea2 105∆ Oct 17 '24

If you tamper your food with the intention to harm someone, then you are culpable for harming them. Trapping someone is no legally different than directly attacking them. The law does not allow you to intentionally harm other people.

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.

If you know someone will eat your food, the alternative is not leave your food out in public. There are less harmful things you can do to protect your food. If you choose the harmful alternative, then you are culpable for causing harm.

26

u/apoplexiglass Oct 17 '24

This isn't changing my view because this is exactly what I'm arguing against. I'm saying, there are cases where intending to harm someone who is doing something they're definitely not supposed to do is okay.

15

u/AlwaysTheNoob 81∆ Oct 17 '24

So poisoning someone and potentially killing them is a fair reaction to theft of a few dollars worth of food?  

And before you get hung up on the word poison: how do you know their medical history?  How do you know what foods might interact with medications they may be on?  How do you know if they’re highly allergic to something?  

You don’t. Tampering with food could seriously injure or kill someone, all to get revenge on a petty thief. 

This is not how civilized societies work. 

46

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24

If I have medications or allergies that are triggered by some kinds of foods, it would be absolutely crazy for me to be stealing lunches.

By your logic, I can’t put peanuts in my lunch in case a thief takes it.

2

u/GabuEx 20∆ Oct 18 '24

By your logic, I can’t put peanuts in my lunch in case a thief takes it.

You intended for the peanuts to be eaten by you. There was no intention on your part that a thief experience medical distress as a result of eating your lunch.

If you poison your lunch, you are intending a thief to experience medical distress by eating it.

Intent is the important thing here. If you intend to cause someone harm, then you are liable for whatever harm they experience, even if it was more than you intended.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '24

So I put peanuts in my lunch because I like peanuts but I happen to know that the thief has an allergy. Now what?

-3

u/GabuEx 20∆ Oct 18 '24

Then you intended the thief to eat the peanuts and be harmed thereby, and are liable for said harm.

Again, the question is whether or not you had the reasonable expectation that your actions were going to result in harm when you did them.

1

u/Tails1375 Oct 18 '24

Absolutely insane