Is it legal to lace products that you're not sharing?

[Freedom1Man]

Tired of the criminals stealing stuff all over the area. I deliver to construction sites and hear about all the stuff being stolen even from remote sites.

I also had my car broken into again.

Since it is legal to make exlax brownies for your own lunch that the one person in the office keeps stealing. I wondered if it would be legal to leave a pack of cyanide laced cigarettes in one's car if you don't hand them out or offer them to anyone?

I figure thieves often like to smoke and why not leave this special gift in the car for them?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[Taypo]

Tired of the criminals stealing stuff all over the area. I deliver to construction sites and hear about all the stuff being stolen even from remote sites.

I also had my car broken into again.

Since it is legal to make exlax brownies for your own lunch that the one person in the office keeps stealing. I wondered if it would be legal to leave a pack of cyanide laced cigarettes in one's car if you don't hand them out or offer them to anyone?

I figure thieves often like to smoke and why not leave this special gift in the car for them?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

As much as I enjoy the idea, it wont fly in court. Especially in Iowa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney

"The Court ruled that using deadly force on intruders in an unoccupied property was not reasonable or justified. Briney would have been justified in defending himself with the shotgun if he had been home during the intrusion. The plaintiff's status as a trespasser is irrelevant when assessing liability in this case."

 

[color of law]

Tired of the criminals stealing stuff all over the area. I deliver to construction sites and hear about all the stuff being stolen even from remote sites.

I also had my car broken into again.

Since it is legal to make exlax brownies for your own lunch that the one person in the office keeps stealing. I wondered if it would be legal to leave a pack of cyanide laced cigarettes in one's car if you don't hand them out or offer them to anyone?

I figure thieves often like to smoke and why not leave this special gift in the car for them?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Most of us want to get revenge, but revenge usually is illegal. Booby traps are illegal.

Unfortunately our corrupt gov. likes to prosecute thought crimes.

 

[OC4me]

... I wondered if it would be legal to leave a pack of cyanide laced cigarettes in one's car if you don't hand them out or offer them to anyone?

Premeditated murder in the 1st Degree no matter how you justify it!

No guarantee that the thieves are not just stupid kids...do you really want to be responsible for the death of somebody's child. Cigs get shared at school too...what the **** are you thinking?

 

[Freedom1Man]

Most of us want to get revenge, but revenge usually is illegal. Booby traps are illegal.

Unfortunately our corrupt gov. likes to prosecute thought crimes.

It is not a booby trap. It would be a criminal dying from the use of illegally obtained property.

Cigarettes are inherently poisonous.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[Freedom1Man]

As much as I enjoy the idea, it wont fly in court. Especially in Iowa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney

"The Court ruled that using deadly force on intruders in an unoccupied property was not reasonable or justified. Briney would have been justified in defending himself with the shotgun if he had been home during the intrusion. The plaintiff's status as a trespasser is irrelevant when assessing liability in this case."

It would not be using any force.

Nor is it baiting anymore than having your own property in your car in the first place.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[Taypo]

It is not a booby trap. It would be a criminal dying from the use of illegally obtained property.

Cigarettes are inherently poisonous.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

You can play word games all you want. You're talking about modifying a common item for absolutely no reason other than to cause injury or death.

 

[color of law]

You can play word games all you want. You're talking about modifying a common item for absolutely no reason other than to cause injury or death.

+1 - legally correct.

 

[jackrockblc]

I don't know a single jurisdiction where this would be legal. This is using a level of force, regardless of your presence at the time.

Edward Briney's justification for setting up a deadly trap was that he was not present, and the intruder "simply did it to himself". Didn't fly then, won't fly now.

 

[utbagpiper]

Since it is legal to make exlax brownies for your own lunch that the one person in the office keeps stealing. I wondered if it would be legal to leave a pack of cyanide laced cigarettes in one's car if you don't hand them out or offer them to anyone?

I figure thieves often like to smoke and why not leave this special gift in the car for them?

Legalities? What of basic morality?

Lacing cigs or brownies with laxatives or Methylene blue is generally considered a fairly harmless prank as the odds of someone being injured by either are quite low. But cyanide?

You have some desire to kill a fellow human being for stealing some things from your truck?!?!?! A human life for stuff? Moreover, you want to turn a common used item that is, in the typical usage relatively "safe" in the short term, into an unknown, deadly item and just leave that item laying around someplace as insecure as in plain sight in your vehicle? You're absolutely certain that no innocent party would ever be injured or killed by these items?

Thieves may be known to smoke, but smokers are known to share to cigs with friends, co-workers, even total strangers.

This is one of those cases where no one should need to ask whether the conduct is legal because it is so obviously grossly immoral that if it weren't illegal, it should be.

I understand the frustration, anger, and feelings of violation that occur when one is victimized by a thief. It is worse when the thief violates the sanctity of your home, or of your car (often darn near a second home or office for many of us). I understand the desire for some sort of retribution, even revenge. But to go so far as to actually explore taking a man's life over this type of an offense is probably not healthy. And it doesn't reflect well on gun owners. I urge you to carefully reconsider your reaction relative to your and humanity's most cherished values and beliefs.

All the best.

Charles

 

[davidmcbeth]

The FDA does not place a limit on the amount of cyanide one can put into food. The motto is "do no harm".

So go ahead and put a tiny tiny amount in and label your brownies as containing cyanide.

No one will be stealing your brownies.

If you think that you cannot be that careful in adding a poison to your food ... then don't.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

You asked.
You were told no. You were shown why not.
You stated that you might do it anyway.
You stated that where it's permanent.

Don't blame anyone else your statements here get used against you in court.

 

[Freedom1Man]

So, where is the law?

If you mixed up cyanide with peanut butter to get rid of rats, there would be no outcry.

Cigarettes come with cyanide already in them. So would it be wrong to add more nicotine to the cigarettes then?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[Ezek]

Legalities? What of basic morality?

Lacing cigs or brownies with laxatives or Methylene blue is generally considered a fairly harmless prank as the odds of someone being injured by either are quite low. But cyanide?

You have some desire to kill a fellow human being for stealing some things from your truck?!?!?! A human life for stuff? Moreover, you want to turn a common used item that is, in the typical usage relatively "safe" in the short term, into an unknown, deadly item and just leave that item laying around someplace as insecure as in plain sight in your vehicle? You're absolutely certain that no innocent party would ever be injured or killed by these items?

Thieves may be known to smoke, but smokers are known to share to cigs with friends, co-workers, even total strangers.

This is one of those cases where no one should need to ask whether the conduct is legal because it is so obviously grossly immoral that if it weren't illegal, it should be.

I understand the frustration, anger, and feelings of violation that occur when one is victimized by a thief. It is worse when the thief violates the sanctity of your home, or of your car (often darn near a second home or office for many of us). I understand the desire for some sort of retribution, even revenge. But to go so far as to actually explore taking a man's life over this type of an offense is probably not healthy. And it doesn't reflect well on gun owners. I urge you to carefully reconsider your reaction relative to your and humanity's most cherished values and beliefs.

All the best.

Charles

you know.. the whole fellow human being, as if placing some immeasurable value on a person simply because they are one, and exist, is IMO utter crap. it is very easy to place a value on one's life, once you remove our natural human superiority complex, and the general beleifs and faiths in the human soul, as well as any real morality. look at it in very simple terms of, the things stolen are of value, if the theif has a job, detract these thigns of value from income gained trhough legal practice, otherwise just detract from a base value of 0.

and a food stamp taking, HUD using, section 8 thief becomes a negative value . multiply that by the years he has to be a decent theif before age takes over and he pulls disability, or social security benefits, then subtract THOSE value for the remaining years and it is very easy to see a HUGE negative value of someone and have them be a large detriment to the community.

so I think revenge on thieves should be perfectly legal, so long as it only targets the theif in question, or thieves in question. after all society needs more positive value individuals, not less.

 

[utbagpiper]

So, where is the law?

If you mixed up cyanide with peanut butter to get rid of rats, there would be no outcry.

If you left that peanut butter where a person was likely to eat it, not knowing what it was, there would be no end of outcry.

The degree of penalty would likely depend on what could be proven about your intent. If the laced peanut butter was in chemical/poison section of your locked shed and some thief ate it, you'd probably be ok legally if you hadn't advertised an intent and desire to kill thieves. If it was in an unlocked shed, and some neighbor kid ate it, you'd be looking at some kind of negligence charge. If it was in the food pantry of your cabin that had been subject to break-ins and theft of groceries, you'd probably be looking at some kind of manslaughter or murder charge for essentially setting a deadly booby trap for the thief.

Again, more troubling to me than any legal questions is your on going commitment to actively work toward ending a human life for a non-violent theft of petty stuff.

Charles

 

[davidmcbeth]

Just print up new labels and note cyanide in the ingredients .... and label "Not suitable for human consumption".....

A silly thread.

 

[utbagpiper]

you know.. the whole fellow human being, as if placing some immeasurable value on a person simply because they are one, and exist, is IMO utter crap.

Respectfully, your view of not placing intrinsic value on the life of a fellow human being is utter crap.

And your views of who contributes to society is the basis for eugenics and "euthanization" of the mentally or physically handicapped, the aged, and the infirm. Or at the very least, for the eugenics of forced sterilization.

I'm not enough of a saint that I don't react differently to an innocent man being hurt or killed than I do to a violent criminal getting the entirely predictable consequences of threatening others' life and limb. But at a philosophical, intellectual level, either we value human life intrinsically, or we start down some very dangerous roads.

Put another way, if we don't value the life of the non-violent criminal who breaks into our car, why should we expect the police, government, or our fellow citizens to place any value on the life of someone that a police officer claims is a violent criminal? If it is just about protecting the innocent, there comes a point where it is obvious the "suspect" isn't all that innocent.

No, we place value on human life because that is the only basis for our civilized society: all men are created equal. All men's lives have some intrinsic value. A man's life or limb are justly, morally removed from him only in reasonable need self defense of an innocent party or upon proper conviction for serious crimes.

Charles

 

[jackrockblc]

The original post was about legality, not morality. The first is beyond dispute under current law, and the second is (as this thread indicates) debatable.

 

[Grapeshot]

--snipped--

so I think revenge on thieves should be perfectly legal, so long as it only targets the theif in question, or thieves in question. after all society needs more positive value individuals, not less.

Revenge is an extremely negative connotation and runs afoul of our Forum Rules - rule #15.

"Revenge is a form of justice usually assumed to be enacted in the absence of the norms of formal law and jurisprudence."

 

[stealthyeliminator]

you know.. the whole fellow human being, as if placing some immeasurable value on a person simply because they are one, and exist, is IMO utter crap. it is very easy to place a value on one's life, once you remove our natural human superiority complex, and the general beleifs and faiths in the human soul, as well as any real morality.

"The morality argument is crap if you remove consideration of morality" is basically what you're saying.

There is no rational basis from which to remove these considerations that one would need to remove to be able to settle on placing low values on human life.

Every human being has a right to life.

Lethal force is justified in very specific circumstances - generally only when one may reasonably believe that it is immediately necessary to preserve their own life or the life of another party and when the source of the threat to that life is the party upon which lethal force is applied.