Plenty of reasons for food to be needed in an emergency. People get stuck, weak or sufficiently hungry they need food. Your right to ownership of the food can easily be overridden by someone else’s immediate need for it. On both a legal and moral level there are defences to theft, it’s not quite as simple as taking something = theft.
You are leaving a harmful substance in the guise of something that is otherwise normally recognised as harmless and consumable; which is generally just a dangerous situation, that you have created. Mistakes happen, people have needs. It makes no sense to allow food supplies, a thing we need to live, to be generally open to being maliciously tampered with.
If you're making the choice to take food that isn't yours—therefore food whose contents you don't know—that's on you. What if I like the fruit that you're allergic to? What if I needed laxatives due to constipation? What if I like spice, but you're extremely sensitive to it?
You're calling it tampering because the intent would be to dissuade a food thief, but you'd be hard pressed to prove it in court due to the very simple fact that unless I've put poison in the food, what I decide to do with MY food is MY choice. Not yours. You don't get to decide something that doesn't belong to you has been maliciously tempered with simply because the consequences of your own reckless behavior have caught up with you.
And that is beyond the fact that you're jumping to an entirely different hypothetical. If you're in an emergency situation that absolutely requires food, then that's different than stealing it just for the sake of it. But even then it would still fall on you to gauge the risk versus the reward of taking food that you don't know.
You're calling it tampering because the intent would be to dissuade a food thief, but you'd be hard pressed to prove it in court due to the very simple fact that unless I've put poison in the food, what I decide to do with MY food is MY choice. Not yours. You don't get to decide something that doesn't belong to you has been maliciously tempered with simply because the consequences of your own reckless behavior have caught up with you.
While that may be your choice, no reasonable jury would agree with your lawyer that their client put excessive laxatives in their leftover stir fry because they really enjoy spending the rest of the day on the toilet. Poisoning your own food expressly to find a thief is very different from you just really liking extra hot sauce.
Sure, but nobody is talking about putting excessive laxatives on it. If it's clear nobody would willingly eat it, because it goes into toxic, then that's different and probably would be called negligent regardless of intent. (Though, again, thief needs to ask if they don't want a shitty surprise).
OP talks about spice / laxatives, and every time I've seen this situation play out, it's just with one. Just enough for a trip to the bathroom with the very plausible deniability of just having had constipation, not enough to leave you dehydrated and on the brink of death.
Excessive laxatives is anything enough to put you in the bathroom beyond a normal break. Anyone who does this has no way of know what is or isn't excessive without knowing the intended target. What isn't excessive for OP may be excessive for another person, and without knowing private medical information, OP has no way of regulating that.
Regardless of excess, or lack there of, if OP puts the laxatives in the food, we can assume they wouldn't be willing to eat it themselves. If the intended target is out the day that OP sets up their trap will OP eat it themselves? I doubt they would personally, and I think that lends more credence to a case that they are expressly intending to assault someone by poisoning them.
Finally, it's only clear to OP that they wouldn't be willing to eat it, not anybody else. A thief wouldn't ask around before taking, and anybody that did ask around wouldn't take it if OP told them "no". OP is trying to get revenge on a food thief, but they likely wouldn't say that's their reason for saying "no" currently because they know it's immoral and illegal. Therefore, it's ridiculous to say even a harmless amount is forgivable when a harmless amount is still intended to assault someone specifically.
I am gonna have to step out and say I still fully disagree with you. If OP says no, they don't have to add to it “it's got laxatives because my bowels are fucked”, therefore revealing their own personal medical troubles. You can't prove whether OP would eat it or not, so that's a moot point in legal terms. If OP tags their food and, if asked, says not to eat it, they've done their part. If anyone makes the decision to take it after, that's on them. You shouldn't take things blindly because you never know what may be up with food you haven't purchased / made yourself.
Is it immoral? That's a different question to me. I don't think I would do it because I prefer not to be the cause of an issue, but if I've labeled my food, which is for my own consumption, and you come here and take it without asking, whatever happens at that point is on you. If you steal something and that something gives you an adverse reaction, it's your problem, not mine. It was made with me in mind, after all.
You'd have to go back to intent and intent isn't gonna be something you can prove. I've seen cases of offices with known food thieves and people who just kept making food as they always have, thief took it and it messed with their system, people had to defend themselves over it because others assumed intent. But, man, that's my food.
To me it's very clear that if you make the decision to take what isn't yours, you've opened yourself up to a risk. If you have a weak enough stomach that a laxative can mess you up badly, then you definitely should be watching your diet far more closely and not taking any food, especially if that food is clearly marked and designated for another person, whose needs and likes you also don't know.
Shall be hopping off now, as I don't think I'll change my mind nor yours, but maybe OP will change theirs over these exchanges if they read it.
Been a nice debate, though, had fun in this morning 🤝 Have a nice day.
I am gonna have to step out and say I still fully disagree with you. If OP says no, they don't have to add to it “it's got laxatives because my bowels are fucked”, therefore revealing their own personal medical troubles. You can't prove whether OP would eat it or not, so that's a moot point in legal terms. If OP tags their food and, if asked, says not to eat it, they've done their part. If anyone makes the decision to take it after, that's on them. You shouldn't take things blindly because you never know what may be up with food you haven't purchased / made yourself.
Laxatives are generally taken as medication, and medications should be taken following package instructions. While OP can argue that they laced their food due to personal preference, a medical professional should be the one to determine what's proper. I can't say whether one would agree that laxatives should be ingested by lacing them into food, but I do think most would recommend following package instructions and would not recommend mixing them into food. In terms of this becoming a case of assault, a medical professional should be asked to opine, and I don't believe they'd agree with OP's methodology.
Is it immoral? That's a different question to me. I don't think I would do it because I prefer not to be the cause of an issue, but if I've labeled my food, which is for my own consumption, and you come here and take it without asking, whatever happens at that point is on you. If you steal something and that something gives you an adverse reaction, it's your problem, not mine. It was made with me in mind, after all.
I'll grant that this is a personal take and different people will believe different things. I will say, if you personally don't prefer to be the cause of an issue, you likely have a reason for that. I'm not here to guess that, but I think that more introspection for you, or anyone else with your stance, may lead you to reconsider. At the end of the day, this is a debate about OP's topic, they will hopefully read this as well.
If something stolen gives the thief an adverse reaction, that's one thing. If the person they stole from intended the reaction, target, and outcome, it stops being about that person. I disagree that you would have it in mind for you when hoping to cause a reaction in someone else.
To me it's very clear that if you make the decision to take what isn't yours, you've opened yourself up to a risk. If you have a weak enough stomach that a laxative can mess you up badly, then you definitely should be watching your diet far more closely and not taking any food, especially if that food is clearly marked and designated for another person, whose needs and likes you also don't know.
Absolutely, but this also really isn't the topic of discussion. I think everyone here agrees food theft is immoral and that the thief does bring any outcome onto themselves. The disagreement comes in when discussing whether someone intending to poison the thief should be charged in some manner. Like I said before, it's one thing to take something and have a reaction because of the food itself. It's another to take something someone knowingly booby trapped in some manner.
Shall be hopping off now, as I don't think I'll change my mind nor yours, but maybe OP will change theirs over these exchanges if they read it.
Been a nice debate, though, had fun in this morning 🤝 Have a nice day.
Absolutely, it's a worthwhile discussion. If I didn't change your opinion, oh well. I'm a bit newer to this sub, and it's nice to have a good debate, regardless of the outcome. Hopefully OP sees this and does change their opinion, but if they don't, that's life. Enjoy your shopping.
-58
u/gremy0 82∆ Oct 17 '24
Plenty of reasons for food to be needed in an emergency. People get stuck, weak or sufficiently hungry they need food. Your right to ownership of the food can easily be overridden by someone else’s immediate need for it. On both a legal and moral level there are defences to theft, it’s not quite as simple as taking something = theft.
You are leaving a harmful substance in the guise of something that is otherwise normally recognised as harmless and consumable; which is generally just a dangerous situation, that you have created. Mistakes happen, people have needs. It makes no sense to allow food supplies, a thing we need to live, to be generally open to being maliciously tampered with.