Because it is food poisoning. Yes, them stealing food is illegal but so is poisoning food knowing someone will eat it.
This is not one of those situations where one person is wrong so the other must be right. This is one of those situations where both people are assholes.
That may be so, but booby-trapping is explicitly illegal in many countries because it basically means an intention to harm somebody else without caring about who the person might be.
You’re begging to differ to someone who’s explaining why this is illegal. We all already know thievery is illegal. Your distinction doesn’t make any sense if you’re not disputing the principle behind its illegality here.
Just maybe all twelve of them understood that the purpose of the jury is to settle matters of fact, not matters of law, and found that yes, you did actually put soap in chocolate hoping someone else would eat it.
I guess depends on how they define “poison” in the legal sense. I know that most soaps aren’t toxic unless you have it regularly for a while. But I would argue the same for most fast food.
You would have to prosecute both to make the charge stick. The only way to discover food tampering would be the stealing of the food.
Also there are perfectly legal modifications that are dickish but don’t constitute tapering. If the ingredients are normally edible without adverse effects, it isn’t tampering. You are allowed to dump a bottle of hot sauce into your coffee creamer. You can absolutely add salt instead of sugar to your homemade pie. You can bring a bottle of Gatorade that has been emptied and refilled with lemon juice.
You can’t add laxatives or NYQUIL or other items to booby trap your food. Basically you’re not allowed to effect someone’s health with drugs or things that aren’t food
Ah, so I can change the taste of the food with spices and substitute lookalike drink that tastes bad, but I cannot add medication, anything inedible, or anything that I know would affect their health (like peanuts if I know the theif is allergic).
What if the theif turns out to be allergic to hot sauce? Like yeah I didn’t mean to seriously harm them, but I was boobytrapping the food with the expectation of causing some amount of harm. If they sue for the medical bills I’m pretty sure I’m gonna have to pay them and if they press charges I can see that going very bad for me
No. If someone in your office is dangerously allergic to peanuts, it doesn’t mean you can not bring a pb & j for lunch.
If your lunches are being nicked and you suspect the person doing it is allergic to nuts, you can not lace your food with nuts knowing they will eat it and potentially harm them.
If someone is allergic to peanuts or
some other ingredient, they take their
own life in their hands when they eat
food that doesn’t have the ingredients
listed. Those people usually carry
EpiPens as a safeguard.
If one passes away (which happens,
though not as often nowadays) there
needs to be proof the person was
intentionally given something the issuer
knew would do harm.
It’s really hard to prove, and genuine
mistakes happen (parent giving a child
a snack with wheat or peanut in it, that
kind of thing).
You would not be liable unless there was proof of intent
Because it is food poisoning. Yes, them stealing food is illegal but so is poisoning food knowing someone will eat it. This is not one of those situations where one person is wrong so the other must be right. This is one of those situations where both people are assholes.
I beg to differ. Food thief is the significantly bigger asshole.
That may be so, but booby-trapping is explicitly illegal in many countries because it basically means an intention to harm somebody else without caring about who the person might be.
I never refuted the legality. I said they’re the bigger asshole.
You’re begging to differ to someone who’s explaining why this is illegal. We all already know thievery is illegal. Your distinction doesn’t make any sense if you’re not disputing the principle behind its illegality here.
You think out of 12 jurors you wouldn’t have at least one nullify? They don’t even have to know what nullification is.
Just maybe all twelve of them understood that the purpose of the jury is to settle matters of fact, not matters of law, and found that yes, you did actually put soap in chocolate hoping someone else would eat it.
I guess depends on how they define “poison” in the legal sense. I know that most soaps aren’t toxic unless you have it regularly for a while. But I would argue the same for most fast food.
True. Poison may not be the right word. Food tampering my be more accurate.
You would have to prosecute both to make the charge stick. The only way to discover food tampering would be the stealing of the food.
Also there are perfectly legal modifications that are dickish but don’t constitute tapering. If the ingredients are normally edible without adverse effects, it isn’t tampering. You are allowed to dump a bottle of hot sauce into your coffee creamer. You can absolutely add salt instead of sugar to your homemade pie. You can bring a bottle of Gatorade that has been emptied and refilled with lemon juice.
You can’t add laxatives or NYQUIL or other items to booby trap your food. Basically you’re not allowed to effect someone’s health with drugs or things that aren’t food
Ah, so I can change the taste of the food with spices and substitute lookalike drink that tastes bad, but I cannot add medication, anything inedible, or anything that I know would affect their health (like peanuts if I know the theif is allergic).
What if the theif turns out to be allergic to hot sauce? Like yeah I didn’t mean to seriously harm them, but I was boobytrapping the food with the expectation of causing some amount of harm. If they sue for the medical bills I’m pretty sure I’m gonna have to pay them and if they press charges I can see that going very bad for me
So I can’t put ANY allergens in my food anymore in case someone with an allergy steals it?
No. If someone in your office is dangerously allergic to peanuts, it doesn’t mean you can not bring a pb & j for lunch.
If your lunches are being nicked and you suspect the person doing it is allergic to nuts, you can not lace your food with nuts knowing they will eat it and potentially harm them.
It is all about intent.
deleted by creator
If someone is allergic to peanuts or some other ingredient, they take their own life in their hands when they eat food that doesn’t have the ingredients listed. Those people usually carry EpiPens as a safeguard. If one passes away (which happens, though not as often nowadays) there needs to be proof the person was intentionally given something the issuer knew would do harm. It’s really hard to prove, and genuine mistakes happen (parent giving a child a snack with wheat or peanut in it, that kind of thing).
You would not be liable unless there was proof of intent
Soap isn’t poison unless you keep eating it.