btw I’ve seen the original Reddit thread this is referencing, and what this tumblr user means by “general consensus” is “one guy said this without evidence, and everyone else said op was fucked and cited specific similar cases to back up their claims.” the only way to defend that this isn’t intentional poisoning is to argue that you did actually intend to eat the thing yourself
The solution is to not literally poison someone. Put enough to ruin their day, and they’ll stop. If they sue, you can reasonably say that you were going to eat it, since it isn’t a dangerous dosage.
That’s still poisoning. It doesn’t have to be a dangerous dose to constitute poison, it just has to be harmful in any way
Not if you intended to take it.
“The dose makes the poison”. It quite literally does matter the dosage, otherwise any normal meal can be considered poison.
Your honor I was constipated, and this was my solution
The solution is to not literally poison someone
But where’s the fun in that?
The fun is all over the bathroom after they steal your lunch again >:3
So can I write “not for human consumption” on my “display sandwich” and be covered, or can I sue Windex because they can’t prove they didn’t intend for me to drink that delicious looking blue liquid? Gotta be one of the two.
Someone was stealing my food at work so one day I loaded the sandwich up with dried ghost pepper flakes. Like an irresponsible amount of ghost pepper flakes. Found out that day who was stealing my lunch and the guy had the nerve to accuse me of poisoning him. Went to management and everything. Manager did the “both sides are wrong and need to apologise” strategy. “Guy, don’t steal food, you, don’t hurt people with your food. Now guy, apologise for stealing food and you apologise for the ghost peppers”. I did not apologise.
Capsaicin definitely seems like the smarter choice than laxatives, since it’s not so medically dangerous and very spicy food is something you might reasonably want to eat yourself.
The amounts of capsaicin I used to put in my food would function as a laxative for a vast majority of people. And had someone at that point stolen my food, I could’ve just eaten it and said “I like it spicy” and the thief would have zero recourse.
capsaicin in large doses can cause heart attacks. which is why that one chip challenge thing didn’t last long, a kid died.
There is a small percentage of the population that would die if exposed to that much capacasin, however I assume that most of us do our best not to be exposed to pepper spray, or “tainted food.” This does make it so we don’t generally steal food, because there’s a high probability that we will be allergic to the stuff.
“Nope. Not apologizing. He’s a fucking thief. I just tailored my food to how I like it.”
I say this as someone that has a lethal allergy to capacasin. I would have died if I took one bite of that stolen food. That’s just one reinforcing reason for me to not steal shit.
damn, seriously? I didn’t even know that’s possible. Do you have to carry an Epipen everywhere because of it?
Have to? No. Is it probably recommended? Yes, but only because pepper spray is so prevalent. Epipens are rather expensive.
“I value the food this asshole has already stolen at $100,000. I will apologize if he pays me $100,000 for the food he stole.”
This is a funny joke. But - more seriously - you don’t need 12 jurors to rule in your favor in a civil trial. And sticking poisoned food in a public fridge with the full knowledge that someone is going to eat it is absolutely going to incur liability, whether you think the person stealing your food was an asshole or not.
I think the more important question is, are laxatives “poison”? I don’t think they are as long as it was within OTC or even edge-case prescription doses (which admittedly sounds dubious for this totally real, true story), even if someone decided they needed to go to a hospital.
https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/student-teacher-laxative-coffee/
https://www.oftlaw.com/blog/who-is-liable-for-food-poisoning-caused-by-tampering/
Yes this is criminal. Poisoning or criminal tampering, depending on who’s getting charged where for what and by who
Yes, sure, when you are administering even OTC substances directly to people who don’t consent, that’s clearly criminal.
But the student putting a legal amount of laxative in the teacher’s coffee is distinguishable from adding it to something you own which you suspect, but do not know, may end up stolen and consumed.
We’re really arguing the core legal issues of actus reus (adding a legal amount to your own food, and the consumption of the food itself) and mens rea (whether you intend to consume it or not, whether you intend for the other person to consume it, or whether you are neutral). But I think there are very plausible defenses here for both elements, even if I can see how either verdict/judgment is possible. That’s why it’s an interesting fact pattern.
OOP wasn’t the one administering them, that’s the point
I’ve seen this pop up many times.
First things first: we don’t have any other info about this hypothetical situation. We don’t know if the hypothetical OP could’ve provided their own mini-fridge, we don’t know if the hypothetical OP’s hypothetical lunch needed to be refrigerated, nor do we know if the hypothetical laxative for the hypothetical OP’s in-universe hypothetical constipation was necessary to mix in with the hypothetical food.
THAT SAID…
I enjoy these kinds of thought experiments, so I already have a personal take based on only the info that is given in this hypothetical situation; i.e. there is only one fridge, the food must be refrigerated, and the hypothetical OP had a good reason to mix the laxative in with the food (hence the multiple “POISON - DO NOT EAT” warnings).
From the information given, if legal action was taken, the “booby trap” angle likely wouldn’t work. If it could be proven that the “POISON - DO NOT EAT” labeling was clear and obvious, then it could be argued that OP had provided ample warning to the food thief, thereby negating any “booby trap”, as the thief would have been well aware of the risk of eating something with such a label - their own personal beliefs be damned.
Instead of going after OP, the thief should go after the company instead with these lines of argument:
-
The company did not do their due diligence in making sure the fridge does not have hazardous material.
-
The laxatives, despite being medication, were not clearly labeled as such and should be seen as hazardous material by virtue of not being in their proper place (inside a capsule in a medical cabinet).
The case is pretty flimsy. And companies get OSHA violations all the time. But the real strategy behind suing the company is to get the company to settle and avoid the lawsuit by firing OP. To outline the real strategy:
-
The thief sues or threatens to sue the company through (1) and (2).
-
The thief makes overtures to the company that the lawsuit can be quietly dropped or settled by firing OP, reminding the company that they have a loose cannon who laces food with laxatives.
-
The company fires OP in order to avoid a lawsuit and get rid of a loose cannon, and the thief drops the lawsuit.
-
Couple decades ago, somebody kept stealing lunches. Couldn’t figure it out, couldn’t figure it out. Finally, somebody went and got a nice deli sandwhich, and put a nice big blob of Dave’s Insanity sauce in the middle and brought it to work.
Next day we hear this ohh, oowww, FFUCKKKKK GRRRRRR WHAT THE FUCK, JESUS CHRIST. It was the owners prick of a son. Guy was driving around in a Ferrari, his father made him work in the office so he could get used to people before he owned the company. He shoulted and screamed and went to daddy. The manager over our section got an angry talking to, but I think it was more of him being embarrased about his POS son.
We were scolded and told not to do it again, but she had a smirk on her face the whole time.
We never had a problem with stolen food again.
The manager over our section got an angry talking to, but I think it was more of him being embarrased about his POS son.
Man, I’d have quit over this shit. “I’m sorry, are you attempting to scold me for your son committing theft? Because it sounds like you’re trying to scold me over the personal food choices of employees when your son is the one committing petty theft. Like. An actual crime. Sure hope I’m mishearing you.”
No one in any of my teams that was working there is still working there. That wasn’t even the straw :)
And the boss that was ‘scolding’ knew it was bullshit too, hence the smirk.
Booby trapping your own property should be absolutely legal, and society should normalize it. If you steal someone’s lunch, you’ve forfeited your right to complain about what’s in it. The moment you put your hands on something that isn’t yours, you’ve accepted whatever consequences come with it.
The legal reality is completely backwards — in many jurisdictions, the person who set the trap can face more liability than the person who committed the theft. That’s insane. We’ve created a system where the victim has to absorb the loss quietly or risk being the one in trouble.
This is no different than a burglar suing a homeowner because they hurt themselves breaking in. At some point we have to stop extending legal protection to people in the act of victimizing others. You don’t get to steal from someone and then demand they be held responsible for your experience of stealing from them.
People have a fundamental right to defend themselves and their property. If you choose to take something that isn’t yours, you own every outcome that follows. The only person who had any control over this situation was the thief — and they made their choice repeatedly. Whatever happens next is on them.
We probably don’t want EMTs and other first responders to die because some asshole booby trapped their property
Charge the crime. If your booby trap hurts an innocent person, that’s different than the booby trap hurting the intended target. I’m advocating that a person shouldn’t be punished for harming a person attempting to victimize another. To that end, there are probably some first responders who I’d be ok with getting hurt by booby traps (i.e. wrong address raids, 4th amendment violators, etc.).
there are probably some first responders who I’d be ok with getting hurt by booby traps
You’re a fucking psychopath.
One man’s psychopath is another man’s savior. They hung John Brown as a traitor, but he was the greatest patriot the US ever had.
Comparing maiming emergency responders to attempting to free the slaves sounds like something John Brown wouldn’t take too kindly to
Everyone is all ACAB until someone says “Chris Dorner” lol. Y’all know “first responders” includes “C” right? He didn’t say “hang paramedics.”
Damn, thats a good one.
By then it’s too late.
I don’t necessarily disagree with this, but there is a rather large grey area that needs to be addressed. Sure, you should be able to reasonably defend your property. But what about unexpected visitors such as neighbors, missionaries, salespeople (I don’t like them but that’s not a reason to maim), and others who aren’t necessarily invited but otherwise have no malicious intent?
A booby trap isn’t going to differentiate between someone breaking in vs an innocent (though unexpected) visitor. And that’s where the distinction lies.
But what about unexpected visitors such as neighbors, missionaries, salespeople (I don’t like them but that’s not a reason to maim)
If they bypass a locked door while I’m not home and go up my stairs hitting the tripwire that drops the paint cans, that’s a reason.
When you hear “booby trap for thief” are you thinking “c4 that detonates when you press the doorbell?”
I mean, that is the general idea of a booby trap. Maybe not C4 or a rigged up shotgun, but still an automated trap that is meant to cause harm to potential thieves.
Right, but your list of potential non-thieves was
neighbors, missionaries, salespeople
So, either you think booby traps are sprung simply on door knocks/bells, or you think neighbors, missionaries, and salespeople can reasonably enter your home and make it to your internal traps without express permission or consent to be on the property.
Lets say I set up a whole ass grenade bouquet. A Mormon knocks on my door, nothing happens. The Mormon leaves, nothing happens. A Sales guy shows up next, rings the bell, nothing happens. He thinks “dude’s not home, let’s go inside anyway” and breaks in, he goes up the stairs and hits a tripwire…
But why was the sales guy inside? I don’t care if he “just wanted to leave Verizon literature on my pillow” or if he was a “thief,” he shouldn’t have broken in.
If I had a guard dog who I trained to attack intruders, would that be considered booby trapping? Do the same threats not exist in that scenario for uninvited guests? My argument is that any innocent person should be legally allowed to defend themselves and their property. If they accidentally hurt another innocent, then charge them with that.
If I had a guard dog who I trained to attack intruders, would that be considered booby trapping?
Good question, honestly. But no. That’s a whole different set of laws.
Do the same threats not exist in that scenario for uninvited guests?
Depends what you plan to use for a hypothetical booby trap.
My argument is that any innocent person should be legally allowed to defend themselves and their property.
And I agree with you on that. I’m a proponent of castle doctrine (to a point), but it doesn’t account for booby traps.
If they accidentally hurt another innocent, then charge them with that.
That’s what the current booby trap laws already do. They aren’t meant to protect criminals, rather it’s to protect innocent people who stumble onto said booby traps.
Try reading the commonlaw justification for outlawing traps before writing an essay about it. The ban is intelligent and ethical. Your comment is neither.
What happens when you fall off a ladder or have a heart attack?
Am I using the ladder to break into a house, or having a heart attack while robbing a guy?
It’s not actually insane at all if you think about it.
There could be a reason for someone to need to break into your apartment, like the emergency services, or someone escaping a natural catastrophe or a murderer. Anything could happen. And at that point, when running away from a hurricane/murderer, you shouldn’t have to assume any and all private property may be boobytrapped.
It’s similar to but not quite the same as why rape shouldn’t have the death penalty. Sure, intuitively one might think that’s justice. But if you take the thought longer, you’ll realise that giving the death penalty for rape just means that any rapists could murder their victim as well, without it actually changing the punishment. Which means it would always be the logical choice for rapists. Meaning victims of rape would also be victims of murder.
Now obviously no-one wants to be raped, but if you had to choose between being raped and being raped and murdered, I’m sure most at least would choose the former.
If boobytrapping homes would be legal, then the emergency services could reasonably just refuse to go anywhere where there can be traps. And thus you’d end up burning quite a lot of people and people trying of relatively easy to fix medical issues.
I too, would enjoy seeing a thief get something blown off, but do we want boobytraps so bad that we don’t care about how many people die from the lack of emergency services?
