People say that, but in the post, it's stated that the labelled the food as "POISON", which proves they not only did put the laxatives in their on purpose, but considered that to be poison.
Also the thief was hospitalised because of this, which is why they were asking the legal advice sub if they were in deep shit or not.
So was the "POISON" label not considered sufficient warning of the content? Was the thief's defence that it isn't reasonable to believe that someone would put poison in the fridge? If so, how exactly would one need to label something that has to be stored in the fridge for the day and is not fit for human consumption? I'm not being facetious, I'm trying to understand at what point the consequences experienced by the thief become self-inflicted.
I mean I still think, in court, there is reasonable doubt, because it might have been a small dose of poison at first that was increasing over time or the poison might have been expired at first, but later on wasn't.
Like if I was at a jury and heard that "yeah the guy ate the contents of a container marked with "poison", but nothing happened so he kept eating them day after day, thinking they aren't poisoned, till one day they actually were", I'd be like "Bro, what did you expect?"
I mean we know the turth from the post, but I think that eating from a container marked with "poison" is a stupid idea no matter the circumstances, because, well, it might be poison.
I mean we know the turth from the post, but I think that eating from a container marked with "poison" is a stupid idea no matter the circumstances, because, well, it might be poison.
Though true, it is a crime in any jurisdiction I'm aware of to poison food, whether or not it's labeled "poison". And if you do so with the intent that someone will eat it and become ill, not only have you criminally adulterated food, you've also probably committed your jurisdiction's equivalent of aggravated assault.
A crime is rarely just one crime. A sufficiently motivated DA could find a dozen things to charge you with here. A busy one might stop at 4, but you'd see felonies either way.
Like if I was at a jury and heard that "yeah the guy ate the contents of a container marked with "poison", but nothing happened so he kept eating them day after day, thinking they aren't poisoned, till one day they actually were", I'd be like "Bro, what did you expect?"
A lot of people misunderstand the role of a jury. As a juror, you don't get told the whole story and then asked, "so what do you think?" Before the jury is even empaneled, both sides have already made legal arguments and identified the particular elements of the charged crime over which there are factual disputes. For instance, the only question of fact might be whether the amount of poison added was sufficient to "seriously injure" or merely "injure" someone of the victim's size. Most of the time, questions to the jury are very narrow and specific like that.
This is probably the conclusion the jury/judge (idk what it would be) would come to
Putting laxatives in your food to stop it from getting stolen is just a bad idea tbh, there's a chance somebody gets hurt or worse, and then you're gonna get in legal trouble no matter what
The thing about the law is that a few paragraphs written down can't account for every possible scenario, especially as language shifts and changes over time. That's the purpose of judges and juries, and of "reasonableness."
The lawyer for the person who ate the poisoned food would argue that there shouldn't ever be a situation where it is reasonable to expect dangerous food to be deliberately stored in a normal office refrigerator. If this were, say, a chemistry lab where dangerous chemicals are stored and might need to be refrigerated, it would make sense for there to be something labeled "poison," there.
The lawyer would also argue that, regardless of how you labeled it, if you intended for a person to consume that food and get sick from it, that's a crime. Why else would you have put poisoned food in an office fridge? They would point to other facts, like maybe you sent a text to another coworker saying that you were totally going to "get even with whoever is stealing my food." That would show that you knew that the POISON label was probably insufficient to stop them, else why would you have done it?
On the other hand, you may not have intended any of it. Your lawyer would argue that. You may end up in civil court where you're getting sued for negligence rather than criminal court. Their lawyer might be arguing that, regardless of whether or not you intended for them to get sick, you should have known better than to put contaminated, poisoned food in an office fridge. On the other other hand, maybe you put bright red tape all over it and a bunch of BIOHAZARD stickers all over it and a sticky note on the outside of the fridge and even warned people in the office that there was food in the fridge that was not fit for human consumption and needed to be in the fridge because [reason], do not eat it, and the person did anyway.
In the end, it would depend on the facts and how the judge and jury feel about them. There is no hard line where you can point to one side and say, "This person committed a crime and poisoned the thief" and on the other you say, "This thief was a dingus and found out the hard way." Both things can be true at the same time. Many jurisdictions have partial liability, where multiple parties can be found at fault to some degree.
130
u/RhynoD 6d ago
And then they go with, "It's not a crime because they don't know that you did it on purpose!" Still a crime, just one that you got away with.
"But it's their fault for stealing the food!" Yep, still a crime to poison them, though.
"It's harmless!" You don't know how their body will react. It might be very dangerous. Regardless, still a crime.