Best way to get revenge on a food thief?

[be bright]

I never, EVER use the shared fridge/freezer in my residence hall because 1) EW! and 2) food thieves. But the res halls limit the size of the fridge we can keep in our dorm rooms, and sometimes I want a half gallon of cookie dough ice cream for the week.
So, I got that half gallon of cookie dough ice cream, labelled it appropriately, and stuck it in the shared freezer while crossing my fingers...

...and it was stolen sometime in the past few days. Lasted just a week.

:mad:

And now I want revenge because, goddamnit, that was my fucking money and my fucking ice cream! One of my favorite flavors!

These food thieves obviously don't show themselves -- if I ever met one of them, I'd confront them. But if they're going to be so damn stealthy, then I want to stealthily seek revenge.

Suggestions, anyone? So far a friend has told me to mix laxatives into ice cream. I like that idea. Said friend also suggested put pee in some juice -- but that's just gross (and not as awesome as inducing diarrhea).
I prefer some type of frozen food revenge -- the shared fridge on my floor is actually a freezer -- but I'm also considering planting a trap in the lobby fridge as well.

So, please. Share.

[runner pat]

Doing anything that could be considered poisoning/harming another person is a real bad idea.

That being said, tiny strips of habanero looks very much like shredded carrots in a salad.

[be bright]

Yeah, yeah...

Now that a few minutes have passed and my head has leveled a bit, I realize that laxatives aren't the best idea.

[Larry Mudd]

Suggestions, anyone? So far a friend has told me to mix laxatives into ice cream. I like that idea. Said friend also suggested put pee in some juice -- but that's just gross (and not as awesome as inducing diarrhea).Your friend's suggestions can earn you serious criminal charges in most jurisdictions. (Late with that observation, I see.)

When this was a concern for me, I opted more for dissuasion than revenge. I affixed an actual funeral home's printed label to my lunchkit, identifying it as a temporary container for cremated remains. Juice in a specimen jar. Work a treat, and no statutes agin' it.

[foolscap]

Ever eat wild persimmons?
When fresh they contain an astringent that slowly
changes into sugars, turning from smooth orange to a wrinkeled black.
I would leave a big box of them in the fridge,
If anyone does take one it would be a pretty orange one.

no one would eat anything with my name on it after that.
even if I wanted them to.

[king_gorilla]

If the food bandit really deserves a lesson --- Purchase anyone of these fine hot sauces http://www.hotsauceworld.com/hothotsaucto.html or any other super hot habanera hot sauce. Put just a tiny dab on each side of the container, and then spread with a paper towel. Wipe off all excess. This doesn't take much, just a really light film. Then place food in fridge.

Communal fridges usual smell a little funky, so they probably won't realize the slight peppery smell is coming from your ice-cream or food item. When the culprit handles the container the hot sauce will transfer very nicely to his/her fingers. They will inevitably scratch their eye, nose, or pick their teeth. When they do so, they will be rewarded with a face that feels like they used liquid napalm for shaving gel. As an added bonus, you can identify the guilty party by a single watery puffy eye.

I have used this tactic at my communal work fridge, when we had a sandwich thief and it worked perfectly. Ironically enough, said tactic was born out of the same fridge. A co-worker had a bottle of Collin blow hot sauce which tipped over. He cleaned it up as best he could, but you can never get all of it, and it coated all the condiments in the fridge. I handled the mustard and scratched my eye, which instantly sent me to the sink with my face under the spigot.

Obviously wouldn't do this if your suspected thief has a heart condition, but if the rascal is a fellow college kit who needs to be taught a lesson ..:D

P.S. wear latex gloves or booby trap will backfire!

[ColdPhoenix]

Your friend's suggestions can earn you serious criminal charges in most jurisdictions. (Late with that observation, I see.)


Peeing in jiuce maybe but laxatives? If I'd severe constipation and liked to mix my laxatives into my icecream to make it taste better there would be no problem. If someone then steals my icecream it'll teach them a lesson.

[ColdPhoenix]

You may want to try this thread for ideas:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=531025&highlight=stole+sandwich+food

Or you could make some indian food rich in methi (fenugreek), you may then be able to determine the culprit by smell.

[Terraplane]

If the food bandit really deserves a lesson --- Purchase anyone of these fine hot sauces http://www.hotsauceworld.com/hothotsaucto.html or any other super hot habanera hot sauce. Put just a tiny dab on each side of the container, and then spread with a paper towel. Wipe off all excess. This doesn't take much, just a really light film. Then place food in fridge.

This is also going to get anybody else that has to move stuff around in the fridge. Some poor guy is going to scoot your lunch over to make room for his and get an eyeful of capsaicin for it.

[otternell]

I have been the victim of the hot sauce prank (it wasn't a food theft issue, just a prank). That method works.

What I would recommend, is to get a small container of Ben & Jerrys and hot sauce up the top layer. You get to eat off the first inch or so, then mix it in so that its not visible. That way, whoever eats it gets the burn. And its got to be something crazy hot, Tabasco will not cut it. (or put in little slivers of habanero).

Watch out on dicing the habanero, that shit lingers on your fingers no matter how many times you wash your hands over the next 24 hours. I am not kidding.

[Machine Elf]

Tainting with poisons or drugs is almost certainly illegal and could get you into big trouble. Think legal trouble, as well as eviction from the dorm and possible expulsion from the school. I would advise against this approach.

If the food bandit really deserves a lesson --- Purchase anyone of these fine hot sauces http://www.hotsauceworld.com/hothotsaucto.html or any other super hot habanera hot sauce. Put just a tiny dab on each side of the container, and then spread with a paper towel. Wipe off all excess. This doesn't take much, just a really light film. Then place food in fridge.

Sounds great, but if an innocent third part is shuffling food around in the fridge while looking for his own, he could become an unfortunate victim. Better to taint the food inside your container, where no one would be expected to probe unless they were most definitely stealing your food.

I've seen hot-sauce stores that carry pure capsaicin extract (http://www.chez-williams.com/Hot%20Sauce/hothome.htm). Might this be devoid of hot-pepper (or hot-sauce) flavor/aroma? If so, this would be the ideal thing to sprinkle on top of the ice cream - undetectable until the thief puts it in his mouth. I think this would be legal: afterall, you are not surreptitiously administering a drug, the capsaicin is simply one food item added to another food item. If anyone asks, just say you like hot sauce on your ice cream, and if the the thief doesn't like it, then maybe he ought not steal your particular ice cream. Or your sandwiches. Or anything else you happen to put in the community fridge.

[ColdPhoenix]

I do like the haberno idea. Perhaps combine it with the laxative idea. You'd want laxative at the top so that he eats it before the pepper (he'll stop eating when he gets to the hot stuff), then it'll burn going in and coming out.

[drastic_quench]

Do something horrible that puts him or her on edge without them actually having to eat the food.

For example, take a nice big shit in a hotdog bun. Then put that in a Styrofoam take-away container (enticingly labeled) along with a Post-it relaying your wish that he "Eat shit, and die".

Clearly, the shit will not be mistaken for food, so you've no worries on that front. Instead, what will likely happen is the culprit will sneak the Styrofoam container back to their hidey-hole before opening it. Or better yet, they open it at the 'fridge. Either way you win, because they'll be questioning what could be in the other food.

A nice squiggly line of ketchup would be a fun touch.

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

To avoid ethical and legal problems, and also save yourself some trouble down the line, here's what I would do. Go ahead and contaminate the food with hot sauce or laxatives (nothing lethal, just in case). And put a prominent and secure label on the food that says, "Dear Food Thief: this item may or may not contain Ex Lax, habanero essence, or other undesirable ingredients. Please do not consume." Actually put the stuff in a few times. After that, you just put the label on unadulterated food.

Of course, someone might just throw the food away to "get" you, but I'm pretty sure they won't eat it.

I saw a good sign once - someone was stealing people's milk and creamer at the office. A mom put up a sign informing the thief that s/he had taken (and presumably drunk) her breast milk.

[Fried Dough Ho]

I've been told that airline attendants (those who used to be called stewardesses) would seek retaliation against unruly passengers with a few squirts of Visine eye drops on a salad; is tasteless, odorless, and causes horrendous incontinence in a non-lethal fashion.

[ColdPhoenix]

I've been told that airline attendants (those who used to be called stewardesses) would seek retaliation against unruly passengers with a few squirts of Visine eye drops on a salad; is tasteless, odorless, and causes horrendous incontinence in a non-lethal fashion.

Best not to try that one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visine#Visine_prank_myth
"Pfizer recommends that anyone ingesting Visine get medical attention or contact a poison control center immediately."

[Fried Dough Ho]

I've been told that airline attendants (those who used to be called stewardesses) would seek retaliation against unruly passengers with a few squirts of Visine eye drops on a salad; is tasteless, odorless, and causes horrendous incontinence in a non-lethal fashion.

Best not to try that one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visine#Visine_prank_myth
"Pfizer recommends that anyone ingesting Visine get medical attention or contact a poison control center immediately."

Thanks for that! I had no idea...

[Cinnamon Imp]

I've been told that airline attendants (those who used to be called stewardesses) would seek retaliation against unruly passengers with a few squirts of Visine eye drops on a salad; is tasteless, odorless, and causes horrendous incontinence in a non-lethal fashion.

Also a very bad idea (http://www.snopes.com/medical/myths/visine.asp)

I'd go with the hot sauce route, or something that tastes horrible but is legally edible - durian? Hundred year old eggs? Balut? :)

ETA - beaten to it by ColdPhoenix!

[Jenaroph]

On a different tack, webcams are getting cheaper, smaller and are easy to set up.

[Baracus]

Revenge is nice, but unless you plan on never using the fridge again, you have to consider the possibility that the thief may exact their own revenge and they may not have the same worries about using ex-lax, etc.

[Swallowed My Cellphone]

Best not to try that one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visine#Visine_prank_myth
"Pfizer recommends that anyone ingesting Visine get medical attention or contact a poison control center immediately."

Thanks for that! I had no idea...It would still be illegal in most jurisdictions too. Here, it falls under "administering a noxious substance".

ETA:
I think on "Passive Aggressive Notes" someone photographed a note on a door that said something like "To whoever is stealing my food: I have three containers in the fridge, I peed in one of them, I'm not telling you which one."

Someone had replied: "That's okay, I peed in all three to even it out."

In other words, if you exact revenge, be prepared for vengence yourself. Better to catch the culprit.

[Lynn Bodoni]

On a different tack, webcams are getting cheaper, smaller and are easy to set up. Go with this one. And then call everyone in the residence hall in to watch the new hilarious video that you just saw. Because I guarantee that the thief has not just been stealing YOUR goodies.

[pbbth]

Go to your local grocery store and ask for a spare produce box, preferably for broccoli or brussel sprouts or some other green vegetable. Bang it around a bit so the corners are damaged, etc. Put your ice cream in there and use packing tape to seal it shut. Put your name on the box and be sure everyone knows how happy you are to have green vegetables in your diet again after being broke for so long. No one will touch it.

That doesn't help you with revenge, of course, but it might help protect your stuff in the future. Also keep in mind that you don't know the financial status of the person who took your stuff. They might very easily be so broke that buying anything to eat at all is difficult and you would probably feel like shit if you ended up hot saucing someone who hasn't eaten in 2 days and is stealing out of poverty or starvation.

[EvilTOJ]

Canned cat food looks just like tuna. Make a nice pattymelt with it.

[Cat Whisperer]

Suggestions, anyone? So far a friend has told me to mix laxatives into ice cream. I like that idea. Said friend also suggested put pee in some juice -- but that's just gross (and not as awesome as inducing diarrhea).Your friend's suggestions can earn you serious criminal charges in most jurisdictions. (Late with that observation, I see.)

When this was a concern for me, I opted more for dissuasion than revenge. I affixed an actual funeral home's printed label to my lunchkit, identifying it as a temporary container for cremated remains. Juice in a specimen jar. Work a treat, and no statutes agin' it.
I like this idea the best; a specimen jar should be sterile, so no problem drinking out of it, but most people aren't going to go drinking out of specimen jars with fluid in them. At least, I hope not! :eek:

[ReticulatingSplines]

How is mixing laxatives with your own food illegal? You can't be accused of poisoning anyone or administering anything if they're STEALING IT FROM YOU. If someone breaks into your house and drinks the science experiment you've been storing in the fridge, that's your fault?

[Candyman74]

Your friend's suggestions can earn you serious criminal charges in most jurisdictions. (Late with that observation, I see.).

Who's gonna complain? It involves owning up to being a thief.

[otternell]

Canned cat food looks just like tuna. Make a nice pattymelt with it.

That's a good one! Makes me gag just thinking about it!

[Contrapuntal]

Go to your local grocery store and ask for a spare produce box, preferably for broccoli or brussel sprouts or some other green vegetable. Bang it around a bit so the corners are damaged, etc. Put your ice cream in there and use packing tape to seal it shut. Put your name on the box and be sure everyone knows how happy you are to have green vegetables in your diet again after being broke for so long. No one will touch it.You don't think that produce in the freezer might be a tad suspicious?

[filmore]

Here's what you do. Buy another container of ice cream and a box of tampons. Take the tampons out of their packaging. Scoop out enough ice cream so that the tampons will fit inside. Cover the them with a thin layer of ice cream and smooth it out so it looks normal. Place in freezer. The crook will get a mighty big surprise when he digs in.

For even more fun, dip the tampons in red food dye.

[Gedd]

[QUOTE=Machine Elf;12913202]Sounds great, but if an innocent third part is shuffling food around in the fridge while looking for his own, he could become an unfortunate victim. Better to taint the food inside your container, where no one would be expected to probe unless they were most definitely stealing your food. QUOTE]

You could just put your trapped container in a plastic bag from the store. It just looks like you got your ice cream from the store and put it straight into the freezer.

As far as a webcam, you might want to check with someone first. Some places have laws about recording people without their knowledge and how you use the recordings. It might be different because you're on a campus and in a dorm. Tell a professor you are working on a psycology project that involves hidden cameras and see what they say.

[pbbth]

Go to your local grocery store and ask for a spare produce box, preferably for broccoli or brussel sprouts or some other green vegetable. Bang it around a bit so the corners are damaged, etc. Put your ice cream in there and use packing tape to seal it shut. Put your name on the box and be sure everyone knows how happy you are to have green vegetables in your diet again after being broke for so long. No one will touch it.You don't think that produce in the freezer might be a tad suspicious?

It could be, but really what are the OP's other options? Put dangerous or unpleasant junk in food and leave it as a trap hoping to get the same food thief? Buy a separate freezer for their own dorm room? Stand guard with a crossbow? Pay to put up a webcam and hope that word doesn't spread quickly about the psycho who is filming people in a public place over $2 worth of ice cream? Disguising the ice cream is the best possible option. If the produce box doesn't work for you get some empty ensure bottles or whatever you think would fit in but be unappealing at the same time. Don't bother trying to punish the person stealing from you because honestly in a college situation there are probably half a dozen people swiping stuff from that fridge. You won't ever be sure your stuff is completely safe in there again.

[Contrapuntal]

You don't think that produce in the freezer might be a tad suspicious?

It could be, Could be? Putting fresh vegetables in the freezer and then going around bragging about your fresh vegetables could be suspicious? Actually, it might work if it convinces everyone you're crazy.


but really what are the OP's other options? Put dangerous or unpleasant junk in food and leave it as a trap hoping to get the same food thief? Buy a separate freezer for their own dorm room? Stand guard with a crossbow? Pay to put up a webcam and hope that word doesn't spread quickly about the psycho who is filming people in a public place over $2 worth of ice cream? Citing a bunch of stupid ideas doesn't make another stupid idea smart.

[Wile E]

You could try this note
http://failblog.org/2010/09/02/epic-fail-photos-note-win-2/

In a previous thread someone posted a link to a locking container but I haven't found it.

[panman_1960]

You had a half gallon of Cookie Dough and it lasted more than 3 days???

Your upset because it didn't make it a week?

Someone was just making sure it didn't go bad.

Really! How much was left after almost a week?

You can't tease the stoners like that and expect anybody to show restraint after the 3rd day.

You deserved to have it eaten.

:D

later, Tom.

[Larry Mudd]

Who's gonna complain? It involves owning up to being a thief.The poisoned person would be outed anyway, and have nothing to lose. Nobody is going to prosecute larceny of a sandwich -- even for a serial offender. Food tampering, on the other hand, is something that could get you up to five years. (Or ten, even, if they can show harm.) As far as tit-for-tat goes, that's kind of a losing situation.

[Mangetout]

How is mixing laxatives with your own food illegal? You can't be accused of poisoning anyone or administering anything if they're STEALING IT FROM YOU.Can't you? What difference does it make that they were stealing? Do you think "I poisoned him because he stole from me" sounds like a reasonable argument? I don't.

[EvilTOJ]

How is the person who stole the food going to prove they were poisoned? Say for example I make my catfood/habanero sauce patty-melt, label the bag "Evil's food, do not eat"*. Someone rummages in the fridge and eats it, gets sick and burns their mouth badly. How would they prove that I was the one that made it, even if it had my name on it? It's quite easy to just put someone else's name on a tainted foodbag. Even if they could prove that I indeed made it, how would they prove that I did it maliciously? What if I happen to like catfood and habanero sandwiches?

Honestly, I think the worst that will happen is someone will raise a huge stink, and the communal fridge will be removed since people can't have nice things.

Or get some of these (http://www.thinkofthe.com/product.php?name=anti-theft-lunch-bags).

[Johnny L.A.]

Ever eat wild persimmons?
When fresh they contain an astringent that slowly
changes into sugars, turning from smooth orange to a wrinkeled black.
I would leave a big box of them in the fridge,
If anyone does take one it would be a pretty orange one.

no one would eat anything with my name on it after that.
even if I wanted them to.

Persimmons can cause bezoars. Not likely if only one is eaten, but if you eat enough you could require surgery.

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

I like this idea the best; a specimen jar should be sterile, so no problem drinking out of it, but most people aren't going to go drinking out of specimen jars with fluid in them. At least, I hope not! :eek:LISTER: (Offering) Lemon juice?
CAT: (Pointing at the object) What the hell is that?
LISTER: It's a syringe.
CAT: What kind of syringe?
LISTER: It's for cows -- artificial insemination. It's been washed; it's clean; it's all been sterilised. Do you want lemon juice or what?
CAT: (Removes the serviette.) Ahem. Excuse me. (Stands.)
LISTER: (Baffled) What? What about the meal?
CAT: This isn't a meal -- this is an autopsy!
LISTER: It's only the starter, man! What about the main course?
CAT: Hey, you think I got nothing better to do than hang around watching you serve chicken chasseur in a stool bucket? (Leaves.)

For all that it's fun to think about revenge, and interesting to ponder the legality of adulterating your own food when you know someone else is likely to steal it, I do agree that the best solution to protecting future food is to make it seem unappetizing or boring. Maybe you could put a pint of ice cream inside an empty resealable bag from some frozen vegetables, or in a protein powder canister? Go shopping and look for healthy or icky looking foods that might conceivably be kept in a freezer, and have a rigid package that could accommodate a tub of ice cream.

[Terraplane]

Ever eat wild persimmons?
When fresh they contain an astringent that slowly
changes into sugars, turning from smooth orange to a wrinkeled black.
I would leave a big box of them in the fridge,
If anyone does take one it would be a pretty orange one.

no one would eat anything with my name on it after that.
even if I wanted them to.

Persimmons can cause bezoars. Not likely if only one is eaten, but if you eat enough you could require surgery.

It's a legitimate food item though. There's no way somebody's going to get in trouble for having a persimmon in their lunch. However, I don't think it would be particularly effective, I've had an unripe persimmon and while I'll admit it wasn't a fun experience they're just gonna avoid the persimmon next time.

I'd just go with hot sauce or maybe a light sprinkle of bhut jolokia powder if you think the hot sauce is too obvious. On the off chance somebody sued you, well, I've seen people put hot sauce on ice cream, sandwiches, all sorts of things, seems like a reasonable item to put on or in your food. Cat food and laxatives, not so much.

[Fionn]

That doesn't help you with revenge, of course, but it might help protect your stuff in the future. Also keep in mind that you don't know the financial status of the person who took your stuff. They might very easily be so broke that buying anything to eat at all is difficult and you would probably feel like shit if you ended up hot saucing someone who hasn't eaten in 2 days and is stealing out of poverty or starvation.

I don't care how broke someone is if they're stealing from me. Jeez, if it was someone I know who needed help, I would buy them food but stealing is just low.

[Lynn Bodoni]

As far as a webcam, you might want to check with someone first. Some places have laws about recording people without their knowledge and how you use the recordings. It might be different because you're on a campus and in a dorm. I'm pretty sure that a communal fridge is considered a public area, and there's no reasonable expectation of privacy. Also, the semester is just starting, and while a sandwich here and some ice cream there are small things, they add up. And it's good to know if there's a thief in the dorm.

[Guinastasia]

What about just using methylane blue? "OH MY GOD MY PEE IS FUCKING BLUE!!!"

[ReticulatingSplines]

How is mixing laxatives with your own food illegal? You can't be accused of poisoning anyone or administering anything if they're STEALING IT FROM YOU.Can't you? What difference does it make that they were stealing? Do you think "I poisoned him because he stole from me" sounds like a reasonable argument? I don't.

No, it's doesn't, but that's not the argument I'm making. My argument is "I am constipated and so I did what I wanted with my food and he/she stole it and thus bears the responsibility."

I don't see what's so objectionable about that. And stop making it sound like giving someone the runs because they stole your food is the same as pouring hydrochloric acid into a targeted person's drink.

[BrotherCadfael]

Nice, big, homemade brownies - which you have saturated with blue food coloring. Look normal, turn the culprit's mouth blue.

[Candyman74]

Food tampering, on the other hand, is something that could get you up to five years.

Tampering with someone else's food, sure. I'm gonna go out to the kitchen right now and put some dog food in my sandwich. Might I get five years for that? Or is it only if I leave it in the fridge? What if I put it in the fridge and a burglar breaks in and eats it? Or what if I have some unpleasant beer-coloured liquid which needs to be kept cold, so I put that in the fridge and someone comes along and steals it? What if I really DO like dog food sandwiches? Am I still not allowed to keep one in the fridge for fear someone might steal it?

[Shmendrik]

Can't you? What difference does it make that they were stealing? Do you think "I poisoned him because he stole from me" sounds like a reasonable argument? I don't.

No, it's doesn't, but that's not the argument I'm making. My argument is "I am constipated and so I did what I wanted with my food and he/she stole it and thus bears the responsibility."

I don't see what's so objectionable about that. And stop making it sound like giving someone the runs because they stole your food is the same as pouring hydrochloric acid into a targeted person's drink.

But your argument is clearly a lie. You put some noxious substance in the food expecting someone else to take it and eat it. IANAL, but I really can't see that going over too well.

BTW, what's wrong with pouring hydrochloric acid into your own drink? "I am saving it for a science experiment and so I did what I wanted with my food and he/she stole it and thus bears the responsibility."

[ReticulatingSplines]

But your argument is clearly a lie. You put some noxious substance in the food expecting someone else to take it and eat it. IANAL, but I really can't see that going over too well.

BTW, what's wrong with pouring hydrochloric acid into your own drink? "I am saving it for a science experiment and so I did what I wanted with my food and he/she stole it and thus bears the responsibility."

I don't know how you'd prove that it was a lie, but I'll humor you. Why in the world are you burdened with the responsibility to ensure someone's safety if it's only relevant when they commit a crime against you? That's like prosecuting someone because his pit bull mauled a thief who broke into his house. WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CRIMINALS???

However, I understand that one does have a burden to 1) try to prevent accidental ingestion of the substance in question, and 2) not make the outcome extremely out of proportion to the crime. Just #1 would give me pause in a communal refrigerator, but people are blowing this way out of proportion. A laxative? Come on. You want to outlaw Chipotle too?

[Shmendrik]

But your argument is clearly a lie. You put some noxious substance in the food expecting someone else to take it and eat it. IANAL, but I really can't see that going over too well.

BTW, what's wrong with pouring hydrochloric acid into your own drink? "I am saving it for a science experiment and so I did what I wanted with my food and he/she stole it and thus bears the responsibility."

I don't know how you'd prove that it was a lie, but I'll humor you. Why in the world are you burdened with the responsibility to ensure someone's safety if it's only relevant when they commit a crime against you? That's like prosecuting someone because his pit bull mauled a thief who broke into his house. WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CRIMINALS???

However, I understand that one does have a burden to 1) try to prevent accidental ingestion of the substance in question, and 2) not make the outcome extremely out of proportion to the crime. Just #1 would give me pause in a communal refrigerator, but people are blowing this way out of proportion. A laxative? Come on. You want to outlaw Chipotle too?

I'm not sure about criminal liability in that case, but people have certainly been held civilly liable.

[tdn]

I have a sort of radical idea here:

Forget this silly idea of revenge. Let it go. Use your own freezer if you don't want to get your stuff stolen.

[Drunky Smurf]

I have a sort of radical idea here:

Forget this silly idea of revenge. Let it go. Use your own freezer if you don't want to get your stuff stolen.

According to the OP they already have a mini-fridge in their dorm. There wasn't enough room in it for ice cream so they put it in the communal fridge. The college may not allow them to have a mini-fridge and an additional mini-freezer.

[tdn]

I have a sort of radical idea here:

Forget this silly idea of revenge. Let it go. Use your own freezer if you don't want to get your stuff stolen.

According to the OP they already have a mini-fridge in their dorm. There wasn't enough room in it for ice cream so they put it in the communal fridge. The college may not allow them to have a mini-fridge and an additional mini-freezer.

That's the one I was talking about, and I assume that it has a mini-freezer. If it's not big enough to hold a galon of ice cream, he may have to bite the bullet and buy it in pints.

I do wonder what the thief did with the gallon container. Either he has his own full-size freezer or he ate the whole thing in one sitting. I find either scenario to be unlikely.

Could it be that several people thought that some kind soul bought them all ice cream, and the last person to finish it off threw the container away? Or does the dorm have a clean-out policy? I've worked in places where if you had anything in the fridge late on Friday afternoon, it would get tossed. Funky smells and science experiments tend not to accumulate that way.

I'd at least consider these alternate scenarios before launching into a habanero-and-laxative-ice-cream-in-a-capsaicin-covered-tampon-box revenge scheme.

[tumbleddown]

And stop making it sound like giving someone the runs because they stole your food is the same as pouring hydrochloric acid into a targeted person's drink.
The problem is, you have no idea what might happen to the person who eats the adulterated food. That person might have a sensitivity to the chemicals in the laxative and could end up severely ill. Hot sauce is a fine and dandy "joke" unless the person in question has an allergy to peppers (not uncommon) and goes into anaphylaxis.

And before you say "well then they shouldn't have stolen food" I agree, no one should steal someone else's food. But neither should someone face hospitalization, serious illness or potential death over a $4 container of ice cream. As someone above noted, it might've been the only thing that the thief had to eat in days. There was a recent LA Times article about college students who were actually homeless. Times are awful. Revenge is childish. Security should be focused on defense, not offense.

[ReticulatingSplines]

And stop making it sound like giving someone the runs because they stole your food is the same as pouring hydrochloric acid into a targeted person's drink.
The problem is, you have no idea what might happen to the person who eats the adulterated food. That person might have a sensitivity to the chemicals in the laxative and could end up severely ill. Hot sauce is a fine and dandy "joke" unless the person in question has an allergy to peppers (not uncommon) and goes into anaphylaxis.

And before you say "well then they shouldn't have stolen food" I agree, no one should steal someone else's food. But neither should someone face hospitalization, serious illness or potential death over a $4 container of ice cream. As someone above noted, it might've been the only thing that the thief had to eat in days. There was a recent LA Times article about college students who were actually homeless. Times are awful. Revenge is childish. Security should be focused on defense, not offense.

I'm not sure where to even begin with this.

1. Being homeless absolves you from crime?

2. I presume you are invoking the eggshell skull principle, and that point is taken.

But (and I don't know the legally correct answer), if the thief is allergic to a substance, I would think he/she is assuming the risk when a food of unknown provenance is illegally and willfully consumed. I am troubled that I have a duty of care that kicks in only when someone has stolen from me, outside of what can be reasonably foreseen.

Regardless, inarguably, you DO have a duty to people who mistakenly might consume your food, which is again why I wouldn't do it in this case.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

If they face hospitalization, it's their own fault. Nobody made them steal. I don't know where anyone is getting this notion that you aren't allowed to put whatever you want in your own food, but it's a complete load of crap.

Personally, my first, overriding desire would be simply to know who the fuck it is. I have no problem with payback, and would certainly prioritize payback well above just protecting future sandwiches, but I don't want payback without knowing who it is first. For one thing, there's a small chance that I might feel differently when I see who it is (and I know we're talking about a college campus, but with workplace thieves, the odds that the thief will have any sympathetic excuse is vanishingly small), and for another if they DON"T have an excuse, then I want to confront them head on and directly, get right up in that ass, Leon style, call them right out on it in front of other people, put up signs on the walls informing people that "X steals food, watch out for X"), and the like. Why fuck around with passive aggression? "hey, you, fuckhead! You're stealing someone else's food." is a lot more productive. Identification and public shaming is the way to go for me. I don't have a moral problem with X-laxing them, but then you don't really get to see it, and the chances ar you still won't know who they are or be able to publicly out them.

So my approach woukd be focused on identification. A camcorder would be an obvious way to go, or maybe putting some kind unwashable (but harmless) dye in the food or packaging that won't wash off. Barring anything else, I'd just stake the place out and watch like a hawk. I'd figure out something, but one way or the other, I'd figure out who it was. I'd have a psychological need to SEE this cocksucker like this and know who it is.

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

FWIW, I'm thinking that "poisoning" or indeed poisoning someone through the mechanism of them stealing your food could fall in the same legal area as using a trap to defend your home. People are not allowed to break into your house - they could easily go to jail if caught. However, if you set up a shotgun aimed at head height with a trip wire, that is not legal either, even though technically the person is killing himself by breaking the law.

It's still fun to imagine a purloiner getting the massive runs from your "special" ice cream though.

[Ludovic]

...
Your user name sounds like a possible answer to the problem.

[pbbth]

It could be, Could be? Putting fresh vegetables in the freezer and then going around bragging about your fresh vegetables could be suspicious? Actually, it might work if it convinces everyone you're crazy.


but really what are the OP's other options? Put dangerous or unpleasant junk in food and leave it as a trap hoping to get the same food thief? Buy a separate freezer for their own dorm room? Stand guard with a crossbow? Pay to put up a webcam and hope that word doesn't spread quickly about the psycho who is filming people in a public place over $2 worth of ice cream? Citing a bunch of stupid ideas doesn't make another stupid idea smart.

Then what is your solution?

So far a couple of people, not just myself, have mentioned the possibility of disguising food. In fact in another thread about this kind of thing people encouraged someone to buy special containers designed to look like your sandwich or whatever is covered in mold (http://www.thinkofthe.com/product.php?name=anti-theft-lunch-bags)to disguise their food as being inedible. Produce boxes were the first thing to come to mind that the OP could get for free and would probably detour someone who is rifling through the freezer looking for tasty snacks to pilfer. Again, if that particular disguise doesn't work for the OP they can get old margerine tubs or an empty box from a medical supply company or any other type of thing that does not upon immediate inspection appear to be cookie dough ice cream.

[tdn]

If they face hospitalization, it's their own fault. Nobody made them steal.

Are you 100% sure that the law would see it that way? I remember a case from years ago where a guy booby trapped his house against burglars, and one burglar got seriously injured breaking in, while another was killed. The general concensus among the public was "serves them right", but the owner ended up serving an 8 month sentence (suspended) for using excessive force.

That's not to say that the OP would face jail time for putting Ex-lax in his own ice cream, but I'd want to at least find out more before doing so. I agree that finding out the thief's identity is a better way to go about it.

Having said that, the Ex-lax option is not a really satisfying one. From the way people endorse it, it's almost as if the thief will take one bite of the ice cream and instantly (and publicly) explode in a firey ball of poo. Laxatives generally do not work like that. Nor is the thief likely to say "Gee, I've got a bit of the runs tonight. This is probably my punishment for the sin of theft, therefore I will stop my thievery." I've had diarrhea many times in my life, and never once did it occur to me that someone was slipping me Colace mickies.

[Shmendrik]

If they face hospitalization, it's their own fault. Nobody made them steal. I don't know where anyone is getting this notion that you aren't allowed to put whatever you want in your own food, but it's a complete load of crap.


Cite?

Do you really think you can smirk at the judge and say "Gosh, your honor, I was just putting some stuff in my own food" and stroll out of the court?

Here's an interesting law from N. Carolina. We really need a lawyer's input in this thread.


§ 14‑401.11. Distribution of certain food at Halloween and all other times prohibited.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly distribute, sell, give away or otherwise cause to be placed in a position of human accessibility, any food or eatable substance which that person knows to contain:

(1) Any noxious or deleterious substance, material or article which might be injurious to a person's health or might cause a person any physical discomfort, or

(2) Any controlled substance included in any schedule of the Controlled Substances Act, or

(3) Any poisonous chemical or compound or any foreign substance such as, but not limited to, razor blades, pins, and ground glass, which might cause death, serious physical injury or serious physical pain and discomfort.

(b) Penalties.

(1) Any person violating the provisions of G.S. 14‑401.11(a)(1):

a. Where the actual or possible effect on a person eating the food or substance was or would be limited to mild physical discomfort without any lasting effect, shall be guilty of a Class I felony.

b. Where the actual or possible effect on a person eating the food or substance was or would be greater than mild physical discomfort without any lasting effect, shall be punished as a Class H felon.

(2) Any person violating the provisions of G.S. 14‑401.11(a)(2) shall be punished as a Class F felon.

(3) Any person violating the provisions of G.S. 14‑401.11(a)(3) shall be punished as a Class C felon. (1971, c. 564; 1973, c. 540, s. 1; 1979, c. 760, s. 5; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1316, s. 47; 1981, c. 63, s. 1, c. 179, s. 14; 1993, c. 539, s. 1242; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

[Diogenes the Cynic]

If they face hospitalization, it's their own fault. Nobody made them steal.

Are you 100% sure that the law would see it that way?
If it's non-lethal (Ex-Lax or pepper sauce, not literaly "poison"), I doubt that law enforcement is going to give a fuck. If a guy wants to go the cops and complain that he got Ex-laxed by a stolen sandwich, and the cops decide they want to investigate, then good luck to them proving anything. I don't even know how they'd prove who put the bag there (or prove that the item wasn't spiked, without your knowledge, after you put it there). If it's rat poison or something, that would probably be different, but I think people are really exaggerating the real chances of prosecution for put a laxative in your own ice cream.

[teela brown]

I don't know if the SDMB linked thread contains my old suggestion, so I'm going to list it here.

I read about a woman who was tired of having her sandwiches stolen out of the fridge at work. So she pulled a clump of hair out of her hairbrush and made an appetizing-looking sandwich with the big hairball hidden in the middle of it, and put the sandwich in the fridge. It was promptly stolen and the thief discovered because she screamed when she bit into the 'wich and gagged on the clump. Fired for theft, too.

Hair isn't poison, nor is dog or cat food. Icky, but not poisonous.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

If they face hospitalization, it's their own fault. Nobody made them steal. I don't know where anyone is getting this notion that you aren't allowed to put whatever you want in your own food, but it's a complete load of crap.


Cite?
Cite that I'm allowed to put a laxative in my own food? Are you high?
Do you really think you can smirk at the judge and say "Gosh, your honor, I was just putting some stuff in my own food" and stroll out of the court?
Yep.
Here's an interesting law from N. Carolina. We really need a lawyer's input in this thread.


§ 14‑401.11. Distribution of certain food at Halloween and all other times prohibited.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly distribute, sell, give away or otherwise cause to be placed in a position of human accessibility, any food or eatable substance which that person knows to contain:

(1) Any noxious or deleterious substance, material or article which might be injurious to a person's health or might cause a person any physical discomfort, or

(2) Any controlled substance included in any schedule of the Controlled Substances Act, or

(3) Any poisonous chemical or compound or any foreign substance such as, but not limited to, razor blades, pins, and ground glass, which might cause death, serious physical injury or serious physical pain and discomfort.

(b) Penalties.

(1) Any person violating the provisions of G.S. 14‑401.11(a)(1):

a. Where the actual or possible effect on a person eating the food or substance was or would be limited to mild physical discomfort without any lasting effect, shall be guilty of a Class I felony.

b. Where the actual or possible effect on a person eating the food or substance was or would be greater than mild physical discomfort without any lasting effect, shall be punished as a Class H felon.

(2) Any person violating the provisions of G.S. 14‑401.11(a)(2) shall be punished as a Class F felon.

(3) Any person violating the provisions of G.S. 14‑401.11(a)(3) shall be punished as a Class C felon. (1971, c. 564; 1973, c. 540, s. 1; 1979, c. 760, s. 5; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1316, s. 47; 1981, c. 63, s. 1, c. 179, s. 14; 1993, c. 539, s. 1242; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

None of this applies because we aren't talking about food that is distributed, sold or given away to others.

[Shmendrik]

Cite?
Cite that I'm allowed to put a laxative in my own food? Are you high?

Yep.
Here's an interesting law from N. Carolina. We really need a lawyer's input in this thread.


None of this applies because we aren't talking about food that is distributed, sold or given away to others.

That's odd. Bold text is usually fairly noticeable, but you seem to have missed it entirely.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The bolded part is also not in play. It was not placed in a position of general accessibility. It was in a private container in a refrigerator intended to store only private items.

[Shmendrik]

The bolded part is also not in play. It was not placed in a position of general accessibility. It was in a private container in a refrigerator intended to store only private items.

Oh right, the fridge isn't accessible to humans. Good point.

[tdn]

None of this applies because we aren't talking about food that is distributed, sold or given away to others.

Good luck convincing a judge that you were constipated, but instead of simply taking a couple of pills, you took the trouble to dissolve them, lace your own food with it, and store it in a public area -- for your own medicinal benefit. Especially if you've had a history of having your unlaced food stolen from that very same area.

Do you really think anyone's going to believe that he didn't have intent to distribute it to others?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The bolded part is also not in play. It was not placed in a position of general accessibility. It was in a private container in a refrigerator intended to store only private items.

Oh right, the fridge isn't accessible to humans. Good point.
That's not what "accessible" means in that phrasing. It doesn't mean "easy to steal."

[Diogenes the Cynic]

None of this applies because we aren't talking about food that is distributed, sold or given away to others.

Good luck convincing a judge that you were constipated, but instead of simply taking a couple of pills, you took the trouble to dissolve them, lace your own food with it, and store it in a public area -- for your own medicinal benefit. Especially if you've had a history of having your unlaced food stolen from that very same area.

Do you really think anyone's going to believe that he didn't have intent to distribute it to others?
They have the burden of proof, not me.

It would never go to a judge anyway. No prosecuter is going to waste time on this garbage. There isn't even a clear charge.

[Shmendrik]

Good luck convincing a judge that you were constipated, but instead of simply taking a couple of pills, you took the trouble to dissolve them, lace your own food with it, and store it in a public area -- for your own medicinal benefit. Especially if you've had a history of having your unlaced food stolen from that very same area.

Do you really think anyone's going to believe that he didn't have intent to distribute it to others?
They have the burden of proof, not me.

It would never go to a judge anyway. No prosecuter is going to waste time on this garbage. There isn't even a clear charge.

Would you extend this line of reasoning from ex-lax to strychnine? Why or why not?

[tdn]

They have the burden of proof, not me.

If I were on the jury, I'd say that the plaintiff made his case quite well, assuming the stuff I posted previously.

As far as it never getting before a judge in the first place, I don't know about you, but I generally don't make my decisions about what I'll do based on whether my actions will land me before a judge. If the question even comes up, it's probably a bad idea.

[Grapefruit]

I don't know how you'd prove that it was a lie, but I'll humor you. Why in the world are you burdened with the responsibility to ensure someone's safety if it's only relevant when they commit a crime against you? That's like prosecuting someone because his pit bull mauled a thief who broke into his house. WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CRIMINALS???


I agree with this 100%. I think it's indicative of your litigation-happy society that even a slight mention of putting laxative or hot sauce into YOUR OWN FOOD can produce some many cries of "But you'll be SUED!" Seriously? 20 year-olds in college are prone to pranking each other and people are wringing their hands crying about how much the trouble the OP will be in?

As to the OP, my suggestion would be to always label your food. Someone mentioned before that since it's a communal fridge, maybe people assumed that it meant to be shared if it's not labeled.

If food-theft still occurs to your labeled items, then put some hot sauce in. I don't recommend laxatives, just because it takes a while to see the effect. The blue food dye in the brownies is a good idea too because you can always say "I was going to bring it to a theme party later."

The idea is to catch the thief and stop him/her, not to exact revenge.

[DigitalC]

I fed them cat food (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=531025&highlight=food+thief)

[Shmendrik]

I don't know how you'd prove that it was a lie, but I'll humor you. Why in the world are you burdened with the responsibility to ensure someone's safety if it's only relevant when they commit a crime against you? That's like prosecuting someone because his pit bull mauled a thief who broke into his house. WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CRIMINALS???


I agree with this 100%. I think it's indicative of your litigation-happy society that even a slight mention of putting laxative or hot sauce into YOUR OWN FOOD can produce some many cries of "But you'll be SUED!" Seriously? 20 year-olds in college are prone to pranking each other and people are wringing their hands crying about how much the trouble the OP will be in?

I think most posters were concerned about criminal liability, not being sued.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

They have the burden of proof, not me.

It would never go to a judge anyway. No prosecuter is going to waste time on this garbage. There isn't even a clear charge.

Would you extend this line of reasoning from ex-lax to strychnine? Why or why not?
I've already answered this.

[EvilTOJ]

Oh man this thread took a turn for the vicious.

*pops some popcorn stolen out of my workmate's deskdrawer*

[Diogenes the Cynic]

They have the burden of proof, not me.

If I were on the jury, I'd say that the plaintiff made his case quite well, assuming the stuff I posted previously.

As far as it never getting before a judge in the first place, I don't know about you, but I generally don't make my decisions about what I'll do based on whether my actions will land me before a judge. If the question even comes up, it's probably a bad idea.
There isn't really a question. It would never be prosecuted. There is no law against putting laxatives in your own food. There would be nothing to charge you with.

[Shmendrik]

If I were on the jury, I'd say that the plaintiff made his case quite well, assuming the stuff I posted previously.

As far as it never getting before a judge in the first place, I don't know about you, but I generally don't make my decisions about what I'll do based on whether my actions will land me before a judge. If the question even comes up, it's probably a bad idea.
There isn't really a question. It would never be prosecuted. There is no law against putting laxatives in your own food. There would be nothing to charge you with.

There's no law against putting rat poison in your own food, either.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I agree with this 100%. I think it's indicative of your litigation-happy society that even a slight mention of putting laxative or hot sauce into YOUR OWN FOOD can produce some many cries of "But you'll be SUED!" Seriously? 20 year-olds in college are prone to pranking each other and people are wringing their hands crying about how much the trouble the OP will be in?

I think most posters were concerned about criminal liability, not being sued.
There is no possibility of criminal liability for putting Ex-lax in your own ice cream. Everybody can relax.

[maladroit]

I cured our food thief at work by making him believe he ate a cat food sandwich. He got really mad, but he stopped stealing food.

I bought a can of Vienna Sausage, and a can of cat food. I gave the cat food to my cat, washed out the can, mashed up the Vienna Sausage and put it in the cat food can. I made a sandwich with the Vienna Sausage. We put the sandwich and the cat food can in the fridge at work. Everyone but the stealer was in on the gag. After he ate the sandwich he asked about the cat food, and we convinced him the sandwich he ate was cat food. They did tell him it wasn't really cat food, eventually. We do still have to work with him.

[Shmendrik]

I think most posters were concerned about criminal liability, not being sued.
There is no possibility of criminal liability for putting Ex-lax in your own ice cream. Everybody can relax.

Good old proof by repeated assertion. Works every time.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

There isn't really a question. It would never be prosecuted. There is no law against putting laxatives in your own food. There would be nothing to charge you with.

There's no law against putting rat poison in your own food, either.
I don't know what might happen if it was actual poison. There is no way to argue that you intended to eat it yourself in that case. That doesn't mean a prosecutor would treat Ex-Lax as being equivalent to rat poison.

Even if it was rat poison, I think you'd get a lot of people on the jury (like me) who would still think it was the thief's own fault.

[Clothahump]

Get some ground beef. Chop up a large beet and mix it in with the beef. Make a hamburger and leave it in the fridge.

Totally harmless, but they will pee red for a day or so. Should scare them massively because it will look like they are peeing blood.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

There is no possibility of criminal liability for putting Ex-lax in your own ice cream. Everybody can relax.

Good old proof by repeated assertion. Works every time.
You're the one claiming something is a crime. Let's see the statute.

[tdn]

Get some ground beef. Chop up a large beet and mix it in with the beef. Make a hamburger and leave it in the fridge.

Totally harmless, but they will pee red for a day or so. Should scare them massively because it will look like they are peeing blood.

First of all -- really? Beets make you pee red? I once ate mass quantities of borscht, and my poo was red for a day, but not really.

Secondly, if you yourself peed red, would you automatically connect it to that burger that you pilfered earlier in the day?

[RedWood]

I don't know if the SDMB linked thread contains my old suggestion, so I'm going to list it here.

I read about a woman who was tired of having her sandwiches stolen out of the fridge at work. So she pulled a clump of hair out of her hairbrush and made an appetizing-looking sandwich with the big hairball hidden in the middle of it, and put the sandwich in the fridge. It was promptly stolen and the thief discovered because she screamed when she bit into the 'wich and gagged on the clump. Fired for theft, too.

Hair isn't poison, nor is dog or cat food. Icky, but not poisonous.

Da Winnah! :D :D :D Especially the thief getting fired.

[tdn]

You're the one claiming something is a crime. Let's see the statute.

Did you miss post 61 entirely? You couldn't have, you quoted the entire thing. You merely dismissed it as irrelevant, when it seems to me pretty clear that it could be interpreted in a number of ways.

But even if that was not the case, so what? The burden of proof is on someone saying it's a bad idea to poison someone? Sounds like a sound reason to poison someone.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Post 61 was off-point. It was about distributing tainted food to others intentionally. It has nothing to do with having food stolen.

The burden of proof is on someone making a positive, factual assertion that something is illegal. Opinions about "good or bad ideas" are neither here nor there.

[pbbth]

Post 61 was off-point. It was about distributing tainted food to others intentionally. It has nothing to do with having food stolen.

The burden of proof is on someone making a positive, factual assertion that something is illegal. Opinions about "good or bad ideas" are neither here nor there.

If someone puts poison/laxatives/habaneros in their ice cream and puts it in a communal freezer with no desire to eat it themselves but instead to trick someone else into eating it wouldn't you call that intentionally distributing tainted food to others?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

No. Because the only way someone else can get it is if they steal it.

I also don't think you can compare poison to habneros or laxatives.

ETA if you write in big letters "DO NOT EAT," then how can you be accused of trying to get anyone to eat it?

Short of actual, lethal poison, this is not something that would ever be prosecuted.

[tdn]

Post 61 was off-point. It was about distributing tainted food to others intentionally. It has nothing to do with having food stolen.

If you know that someone is stealing your food, and you taint some for the specific purpose of baiting the thief with it in the hopes that he'll eat it and suffer physically, that's about as intentional as you can get. Do you really think that anyone in this thread who is advocating such an act is really really hoping that the poor innocent thief will NOT take the bait?

[Mangetout]

First of all -- really? Beets make you pee red?

Have done for me. I made a big bowl of beetroot salad and ate maybe a pound of the stuff (what can I say? I was hungry). The next day, I honestly thought I was peeing blood.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Why are people so bloody concerned about the criminals anway?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Post 61 was off-point. It was about distributing tainted food to others intentionally. It has nothing to do with having food stolen.

If you know that someone is stealing your food, and you taint some for the specific purpose of baiting the thief with it in the hopes that he'll eat it and suffer physically, that's about as intentional as you can get. Do you really think that anyone in this thread who is advocating such an act is really really hoping that the poor innocent thief will NOT take the bait?
The thief can only take the bait by breaking the law. It's not my problem if someone else breaks the law. I even wrote "DO NOT EAT" on the bag.

[tdn]

The thief can only take the bait by breaking the law. It's not my problem if someone else breaks the law. I even wrote "DO NOT EAT" on the bag.

Sure. You wrote it on there in the specific hope that the thief would eat it anyway. That's intentional.

[pbbth]

If you know that someone is stealing your food, and you taint some for the specific purpose of baiting the thief with it in the hopes that he'll eat it and suffer physically, that's about as intentional as you can get. Do you really think that anyone in this thread who is advocating such an act is really really hoping that the poor innocent thief will NOT take the bait?
The thief can only take the bait by breaking the law. It's not my problem if someone else breaks the law. I even wrote "DO NOT EAT" on the bag.

But booby trapping your house is illegal even if the only way someone can fall victim to your trap is to illegally enter your home. Why would this situation be any different?

I swear, the second I see your name show up in a thread I just know it is getting ready to crash and burn. You come in and make incorrect sweeping generalizations, get your ass handed to you for 4 or 5 pages and then grudgingly admit you were wrong. Why not take 10 minutes and do some basic research and think about what you are going to say before you charge into an argument for once?

[tdn]

First of all -- really? Beets make you pee red?

Have done for me. I made a big bowl of beetroot salad and ate maybe a pound of the stuff (what can I say? I was hungry). The next day, I honestly thought I was peeing blood.

Huh. Not my experience. But yeah, when I saw blood in my poop, I got really concerned until I remembered what I had for dinner, lunch, and dinner again that weekend.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Are you 100% sure that the law would see it that way?
If it's non-lethal (Ex-Lax or pepper sauce, not literaly "poison"), I doubt that law enforcement is going to give a fuck. If a guy wants to go the cops and complain that he got Ex-laxed by a stolen sandwich, and the cops decide they want to investigate, then good luck to them proving anything. I don't even know how they'd prove who put the bag there (or prove that the item wasn't spiked, without your knowledge, after you put it there). If it's rat poison or something, that would probably be different, but I think people are really exaggerating the real chances of prosecution for put a laxative in your own ice cream.

Your argument here is simply "you won't get caught and even if you do, you won't be prosecuted."

It's still against the law though, and IMO, a dumb idea.

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

I think the reasoning would go something like this.

May you directly poison or assault* someone as revenge for stealing? No.
May you directly poison or assault someone to prevent them from stealing? No.
Attempting to commit a crime is itself a crime, involving the intent to commit the crime, combined with substantial actions taken to commit it.
If you take substantial actions with the intent of poisoning or assaulting someone in defense of personal property, you are guilty of an attempted assault, without the excuse of reasonable self defense.

Now, in practical terms, the DA or Plaintiff would have to convince a jury that you intended to poison or assault the food thief. This would be pretty easy to prove if the addition to the food was a dangerous or disgusting non-food item, and more difficult to prove with food items. However, it is perfectly possible for a jury to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not put habaneros in your Chunky Monkey because you enjoy the flavor combination. Especially if there's other evidence such as witnesses saying you'd complained about a food thief or something.

*Broadly speaking, causing someone to come in bodily contact with something you should realize they would not desire to come into contact with is assault and battery.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Post 61 was off-point. It was about distributing tainted food to others intentionally. It has nothing to do with having food stolen.


It's already been pointed out, but the cite said:

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly distribute, sell, give away or otherwise cause to be placed in a position of human accessibility, any food or eatable substance which that person knows to contain: etc. etc.

If you place a food substance that you know to be tainted in a position of human accessibility, you are breaking the law. It does not matter if the tainted food is subsequently borrowed, found, stolen, given away, or whatever. You have knowingly PUT tainted food in a position of human accessibility. You have broken this law.

Give up now, I'm begging you.

[tdn]

If you place a food substance that you know to be tainted in a position of human accessibility, you are breaking the law.

He's already argued that the common area of a dorm is not humanly accessible. How he could make that argument with a straight face is beyond me.

But let's try a different tack. Suppose I poison a few bottles of Tylenol and sneak them onto store shelves around the country. A little old lady, on her fixed income, shoplifts a bottle, takes it home, pops some pills, and dies. Does that mean I have clean hands? Hey, she's a thief and should have known better. And besides I was only poisoning my own Tylenol. My property, mine to do with as I please.

[Acid Lamp]

Dio's got the right on this one. Neither hot sauce, nor ex-lax are poisons or harmful substances. They are widely marked food products and edibles. This armchair lawyering is retarded, and an example of everything that is completely screwed up with our culture at the moment. What if the thief has an unknown allergy to blue cheese and goes into anaphalaxis when they steal my black and bleu burgers? Sheesh.

[muldoonthief]

Post 61 was off-point. It was about distributing tainted food to others intentionally. It has nothing to do with having food stolen.


It's already been pointed out, but the cite said:

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly distribute, sell, give away or otherwise cause to be placed in a position of human accessibility, any food or eatable substance which that person knows to contain: etc. etc.

If you place a food substance that you know to be tainted in a position of human accessibility, you are breaking the law. It does not matter if the tainted food is subsequently borrowed, found, stolen, given away, or whatever. You have knowingly PUT tainted food in a position of human accessibility. You have broken this law.

Give up now, I'm begging you.

Let's examine the etc.'s though:

(1) Any noxious or deleterious substance, material or article which might be injurious to a person's health or might cause a person any physical discomfort, or

(2) Any controlled substance included in any schedule of the Controlled Substances Act, or

(3) Any poisonous chemical or compound or any foreign substance such as, but not limited to, razor blades, pins, and ground glass, which might cause death, serious physical injury or serious physical pain and discomfort.


Rat poison? Definitely in 3.

Exlax? Is it noxious or deleterious? I guess that's arguable either way.

Habaneros? Are they noxious or deleterious? Millions of people eat them all the time. If the law is such that putting habanero sauce in ice cream and putting it in the freezer is illegal, then putting it in a sandwich and putting it in the community fridge would be just as illegal. I'd have a tough time saying that put an actual food substance in another food, even in a way designed to catch a thief, would actually be in violation of this law.

[Acid Lamp]

Oh and a simple google search will get you hundreds of recipes for habenero ice cream.

[tdn]

What if the thief has an unknown allergy to blue cheese and goes into anaphalaxis when they steal my black and bleu burgers? Sheesh.

What if you know the thief has just such an allergy and you purposely concealed the bleu cheese in the burger in the hopes that he'd have an adverse reaction?

Huge difference there.

[Acid Lamp]

What if the thief has an unknown allergy to blue cheese and goes into anaphalaxis when they steal my black and bleu burgers? Sheesh.

What if you know the thief has just such an allergy and you purposely concealed the bleu cheese in the burger in the hopes that he'd have an adverse reaction?

Huge difference there.

prove it.

[tdn]

prove it.

Are you making the argument that you really did intend to send the guy into anaphalaxis but no court will convict you?

Nice.

[Acid Lamp]

Are you making the argument that you really did intend to send the guy into anaphalaxis but no court will convict you?

Nice.

No, I'm making the argument that you have to prove an intent to poison, to do dangerous bodily harm to someone. If I knew of the thief's allergy and suspected him of stealing then slipped some in his stored food as revenge, then I'd certainly be guilty. If I put something many people find unpleasant but perfectly edible in MY OWN FOOD, which he steals and then becomes ill from, it is hardly my fault. It is his for stealing and consuming food that does not belong to him and is from an unknown source.

Hot sauce and ex-lax aren't poisons.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The thief can only take the bait by breaking the law. It's not my problem if someone else breaks the law. I even wrote "DO NOT EAT" on the bag.

But booby trapping your house is illegal even if the only way someone can fall victim to your trap is to illegally enter your home. Why would this situation be any different?

I swear, the second I see your name show up in a thread I just know it is getting ready to crash and burn. You come in and make incorrect sweeping generalizations, get your ass handed to you for 4 or 5 pages and then grudgingly admit you were wrong. Why not take 10 minutes and do some basic research and think about what you are going to say before you charge into an argument for once?
I came in to correct bullshit. There is no law against putting habaneros in your own food. Sorry.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Post 61 was off-point. It was about distributing tainted food to others intentionally. It has nothing to do with having food stolen.


It's already been pointed out, but the cite said:

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly distribute, sell, give away or otherwise cause to be placed in a position of human accessibility, any food or eatable substance which that person knows to contain: etc. etc.

If you place a food substance that you know to be tainted in a position of human accessibility, you are breaking the law. It does not matter if the tainted food is subsequently borrowed, found, stolen, given away, or whatever. You have knowingly PUT tainted food in a position of human accessibility. You have broken this law.

Give up now, I'm begging you.
You did not put in a place of human accessibility. You stored it privately and it was stolen. Everybody else is full of shit on this one, not me.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

prove it.

Are you making the argument that you really did intend to send the guy into anaphalaxis but no court will convict you?

Nice.
He' s making the argument that it's impossible to prove. Moreover, the retard killed himself by stealing and eating food withoutnknowing what was in it. No jury would convict. No prosecutor would even charge.

[tdn]

No, I'm making the argument that you have to prove an intent to poison, to do dangerous bodily harm to someone. If I knew of the thief's allergy and suspected him of stealing then slipped some in his stored food as revenge, then I'd certainly be guilty. If I put something many people find unpleasant but perfectly edible in MY OWN FOOD, which he steals and then becomes ill from, it is hardly my fault. It is his for stealing and consuming food that does not belong to him and is from an unknown source.

Hot sauce and ex-lax aren't poisons.

Thanks for clearing that up.

If I put peanut butter on my own hamburger and someone with peanut allergies stole it, then that's one thing. Would a reasonable person put peanut butter on a hamburger? Sure, it could happen. Some people have weird tastes in food.

What if you put peanut butter on his burger? That's most certainly wrong, though I doubt illegal.

But would you put Ex-lax on your burger? Would a reasonable person do that? No. For one thing, it's not a food. It may not be a poison, but it's a medication designed to alter the function of a person't digestive tract. It serves no other purpose. It doesn't taste delicious (I'm guessing).

If the guy is a known food thief, and you put medication in your own food and put it where the thief is likely to take it, your intention is clear -- you plan on medicating the guy.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

If you place a food substance that you know to be tainted in a position of human accessibility, you are breaking the law.

He's already argued that the common area of a dorm is not humanly accessible.Not legally accessible, no. You have a right to expect that your possessions will not be accessed illegally.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

No, I'm making the argument that you have to prove an intent to poison, to do dangerous bodily harm to someone. If I knew of the thief's allergy and suspected him of stealing then slipped some in his stored food as revenge, then I'd certainly be guilty. If I put something many people find unpleasant but perfectly edible in MY OWN FOOD, which he steals and then becomes ill from, it is hardly my fault. It is his for stealing and consuming food that does not belong to him and is from an unknown source.

Hot sauce and ex-lax aren't poisons.

Thanks for clearing that up.

If I put peanut butter on my own hamburger and someone with peanut allergies stole it, then that's one thing. Would a reasonable person put peanut butter on a hamburger? Sure, it could happen. Some people have weird tastes in food.

What if you put peanut butter on his burger? That's most certainly wrong, though I doubt illegal.

But would you put Ex-lax on your burger? Would a reasonable person do that? No. For one thing, it's not a food. It may not be a poison, but it's a medication designed to alter the function of a person't digestive tract. It serves no other purpose. It doesn't taste delicious (I'm guessing).

If the guy is a known food thief, and you put medication in your own food and put it where the thief is likely to take it, your intention is clear -- you plan on medicating the guy.
There are bulemics who use Ex-Lax liberally as a means of purging.

You need to prove an intention with more than just an assertion.

[ReticulatingSplines]

It doesn't taste delicious (I'm guessing).


Actually, and I'm being dead serious, Ex-Lax tastes quite good. Like a chocolate bar.

[Contrapuntal]

Not legally accessible, no. You have a right to expect that your possessions will not be accessed illegally.Right. Anywhere you put food is by definition accessible to humans. You accessed it, didn't you? Food on my kitchen counter is accessible to humans. Food in a locked box at my campsite is accessible to humans. Food in my refrigerator is accessible to humans. If someone breaks into my house, raids my fridge, and then gets sick, am I really to blame?

[bucketybuck]

Sure. You wrote it on there in the specific hope that the thief would eat it anyway. That's intentional.

Prove it.

[The Second Stone]

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

Buy a pint of Haagen Daaz ice cream. Eat it, save the package. Then buy some cheapo brand diet ice cream and put it in the Haagen Daaz container and put it in the communal freezer. The asshole who starts complaining about lousy Haagen Daaz is the culprit.

Once you know who the culprit is, get a mylar mailing envelope. Fill it with whipping cream (shaving cream is for wimps). Slide the open end under the door and then stomp on the filled end so that whipping cream covers the culprit's room on the inside. Repeat until you are out of whipping cream. Slide the flattened Haagen Daaz container under the door so they know why you did it. Hours later when they return from class it will stink. Cover outside of doorknob with honey.

The Second Stone, college graduate.

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

Sure. You wrote it on there in the specific hope that the thief would eat it anyway. That's intentional.

Prove it.Jesus, does anyone read my posts?

First, people are saying it's illegal. What you do can be illegal even if it can't be proven that you did it. They are separate (though related) issues.

Second, it is perfectly possible to prove intent. Contrary to what you may believe, a jury does not need a notarized affidavit from you stating your intent to find that you intended something. Sure it is not certain that this crime would be punished, but it is completely possible.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I don't see how.

Also, it's not illegal.

[Tethered Kite]

I went on vacation and when I returned there were two homemade (and luscious) pizzas gone from my freezer. Bet I know who did it - The Bottomless Pit, AKA my son.

I'd put another in there with some noxious substance on them and announce I was going away for a couple of days, but I'm not going to because revenge. . .

















. . . is a dish best served cold. :p

[The Second Stone]

Ha, ha, beat you to it by two posts!

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

I don't see how.Are you seriously expressing disbelief that juries use circumstantial evidence to infer intent? Do you deny that people routinely get convicted of attempted crimes without a notarized affidavit expressing their intent offered in evidence?

[Acid Lamp]

I think he's saying that in this case the chances are more likely that someone would add something to own food outweigh any circumstantial evidence the affected person might be able to produce.

[Ogre]

Why are people so bloody concerned about the criminals anway?Likely because they're the ones who enjoy taking other people's stuff.

[bucketybuck]

Prove it.Jesus, does anyone read my posts?

First, people are saying it's illegal. What you do can be illegal even if it can't be proven that you did it. They are separate (though related) issues.

Second, it is perfectly possible to prove intent. Contrary to what you may believe, a jury does not need a notarized affidavit from you stating your intent to find that you intended something. Sure it is not certain that this crime would be punished, but it is completely possible.

Read this.

Standing in court, prove that "Joe-Bloggs" wrote "do not eat this" (as per TDN's quote)on his ice cream container because he had a specific hope that the thief would eat it anyway. Prove that. Go on.

By the way, Joe Bloggs is in court right then. He says he wrote "Do not eat this" on his ice cream because he didnt want anybody else to eat his ice cream. A crazy notion 'tis true. Prove otherwise. Go on.

Why is laxative in his ice cream? He feels he needs to take laxatives. Why ice cream? He doesnt like the taste of laxatives, so mixes it with tasty ice cream. Why is it in the fridge? Its ice cream, needs to be kept cold. Wasnt he worried that somebody could take his laxative? Yes, a bit, so he decided to write "do not eat this" on the carton.

Thats his story. You feel you can prove a different intent? Go on then, PROVE HIM WRONG.

Thats right, you cant.

All this is SDMB rubbish anyway. Post a story about pulling a harmless prank and sure enough somebody will berate you for breaking the law and destroying society. Sheesh, is it always about the lawyers for you lot?

[Euphonious Polemic]

You did not put in a place of human accessibility. You stored it privately and it was stolen. Everybody else is full of shit on this one, not me.

From the OP:

So, I got that half gallon of cookie dough ice cream, labelled it appropriately, and stuck it in the shared freezer while crossing my fingers...

IN THE SHARED FREEZER. This is not privately stored.

[Euphonious Polemic]

[
Let's examine the etc.'s though:


Exlax? Is it noxious or deleterious? I guess that's arguable either way.

Habaneros? Are they noxious or deleterious? Millions of people eat them all the time. If the law is such that putting habanero sauce in ice cream and putting it in the freezer is illegal, then putting it in a sandwich and putting it in the community fridge would be just as illegal. I'd have a tough time saying that put an actual food substance in another food, even in a way designed to catch a thief, would actually be in violation of this law.

I'll agree with you about the habanero's.

But I'd argue that ExLax could be defined as a deleterious substance if put into a food item. It does not belong in a food item and is not a food. It is an over the counter drug.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Read this.

Standing in court, prove that "Joe-Bloggs" wrote "do not eat this" (as per TDN's quote)on his ice cream container because he had a specific hope that the thief would eat it anyway. Prove that. Go on.


I call Joe Bloggs roomate to the stand.

Did you see Joe Bloggs write "do not eat this" on his ice cream?
"I did"
What did he say as he wrote it?
"He said, "this will serve that Goddamn ice cream thief right when he eats this and shits himself from here to Tuesday."

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You did not put in a place of human accessibility. You stored it privately and it was stolen. Everybody else is full of shit on this one, not me.

From the OP:

So, I got that half gallon of cookie dough ice cream, labelled it appropriately, and stuck it in the shared freezer while crossing my fingers...

IN THE SHARED FREEZER. This is not privately stored.
Yes it i privately stored. The communal freezer exists for the storing of private property. That is the expectation. Jyust because something is in it does not mean that it is being provided for public distribution. There is no access being provded here. The container itself is private property, is labled as such and is reasonably undetrstood as such. I cannot believe how completely full of shit people are being about this.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Read this.

Standing in court, prove that "Joe-Bloggs" wrote "do not eat this" (as per TDN's quote)on his ice cream container because he had a specific hope that the thief would eat it anyway. Prove that. Go on.


I call Joe Bloggs roomate to the stand.

Did you see Joe Bloggs write "do not eat this" on his ice cream?
"I did"
What did he say as he wrote it?
"He said, "this will serve that Goddamn ice cream thief right when he eats this and shits himself from here to Tuesday."
Hearsay.

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

Read this.

Standing in court, prove that "Joe-Bloggs" wrote "do not eat this" (as per TDN's quote)on his ice cream container because he had a specific hope that the thief would eat it anyway. Prove that. Go on.

By the way, Joe Bloggs is in court right then. He says he wrote "Do not eat this" on his ice cream because he didnt want anybody else to eat his ice cream. A crazy notion 'tis true. Prove otherwise. Go on.

Why is laxative in his ice cream? He feels he needs to take laxatives. Why ice cream? He doesnt like the taste of laxatives, so mixes it with tasty ice cream. Why is it in the fridge? Its ice cream, needs to be kept cold. Wasnt he worried that somebody could take his laxative? Yes, a bit, so he decided to write "do not eat this" on the carton.

Thats his story. You feel you can prove a different intent? Go on then, PROVE HIM WRONG.

Thats right, you cant.

All this is SDMB rubbish anyway. Post a story about pulling a harmless prank and sure enough somebody will berate you for breaking the law and destroying society. Sheesh, is it always about the lawyers for you lot?Are you arguing that someone who intends only to dose himself and accidentally doses someone else is innocent? That's trivially true.

Or are you arguing that perjuring yourself might avoid conviction in a criminal case? Well duh. That doesn't mean that committing a crime is legal.

As for the note - drunk drivers don't intend to kill people, as a rule. They may in fact take great pains to drive as safely as possible given their condition. However, they can reasonably foresee the outcome that someone could get killed, therefore they have the necessary mens rea to be found guilty of homicide. In this case, the defendant would have more of a guilty intent, since they don't just recklessly ignore the possibility of the food being taken, they are relying on it based on the evidence and history.

Look. Are food thieves jerks who deserve a case of the runs as punishment? Sure.

Could you dose a food thief and probably get away with it? Sure.

Is it legal to deliberately dose a food thief? Probably not.

Dio, that statement is excluded from hearsay because it's a statement against the defendant's interest.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

[
Let's examine the etc.'s though:


Exlax? Is it noxious or deleterious? I guess that's arguable either way.

Habaneros? Are they noxious or deleterious? Millions of people eat them all the time. If the law is such that putting habanero sauce in ice cream and putting it in the freezer is illegal, then putting it in a sandwich and putting it in the community fridge would be just as illegal. I'd have a tough time saying that put an actual food substance in another food, even in a way designed to catch a thief, would actually be in violation of this law.

I'll agree with you about the habanero's.

But I'd argue that ExLax could be defined as a deleterious substance if put into a food item. It does not belong in a food item and is not a food. It is an over the counter drug.
You're argument would fail. It is not deleterious, and it's not your place to decide for others how they are able to imgest it. People mix medications with food all the fucking time. My job involves passing a lot of meds, and frequently certain kinds of meds -- including laxatives -- are specifically instructed to be mixed with food for specific individuals. Saying "you have no right to mix your laxative with ice cream" is a non-fucking starter.

Not that any of this would ever be charged anyway. It's the sheerest fantasy that there would be a criminal trial.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Read this.

Standing in court, prove that "Joe-Bloggs" wrote "do not eat this" (as per TDN's quote)on his ice cream container because he had a specific hope that the thief would eat it anyway. Prove that. Go on.

By the way, Joe Bloggs is in court right then. He says he wrote "Do not eat this" on his ice cream because he didnt want anybody else to eat his ice cream. A crazy notion 'tis true. Prove otherwise. Go on.

Why is laxative in his ice cream? He feels he needs to take laxatives. Why ice cream? He doesnt like the taste of laxatives, so mixes it with tasty ice cream. Why is it in the fridge? Its ice cream, needs to be kept cold. Wasnt he worried that somebody could take his laxative? Yes, a bit, so he decided to write "do not eat this" on the carton.

Thats his story. You feel you can prove a different intent? Go on then, PROVE HIM WRONG.

Thats right, you cant.

All this is SDMB rubbish anyway. Post a story about pulling a harmless prank and sure enough somebody will berate you for breaking the law and destroying society. Sheesh, is it always about the lawyers for you lot?Are you arguing that someone who intends only to dose himself and accidentally doses someone else is innocent? That's trivially true.

Or are you arguing that perjuring yourself might avoid conviction in a criminal case? Well duh. That doesn't mean that committing a crime is legal.

As for the note - drunk drivers don't intend to kill people, as a rule. They may in fact take great pains to drive as safely as possible given their condition. However, they can reasonably foresee the outcome that someone could get killed, therefore they have the necessary mens rea to be found guilty of homicide. In this case, the defendant would have more of a guilty intent, since they don't just recklessly ignore the possibility of the food being taken, they are relying on it based on the evidence and history.

Look. Are food thieves jerks who deserve a case of the runs as punishment? Sure.

Could you dose a food thief and probably get away with it? Sure.

Is it legal to deliberately dose a food thief? Probably not.[
It's not deliberate. It can only happen if the person steals the food. It's not a crime to dose your own food with laxatives. If someone steals that item, then you are the victim.
Dio, that statement is excluded from hearsay because it's a statement against the defendant's interest.
Then it's up to the jury whether to believe the roommate. It would be pretty easy just to say the roommate is full of shit. Not that I think there's the slightest chance there would ever be a trial, or that I beleive it would be illegal even if you admitted that was your intent.

Certainly no jury would convict.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You don't have to perjur yourself, by the way. You don't have to testify at all. You just need your lawyer to ask the right questions.

[EVERYNAMEISTAKEN]

I don't know, but I have had people steal my food too. >:( There was one girl at my last place of employment who openly stole LOTS of people's food, and didn't even make an attempt to hide it. She would say, "Oh, yeah, those were good." or "Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that that was yours." (Even when it had the name clearly written on it.) She never bothered to pay anyone back, of course. She stole money too. Recently she had her iPod stolen, and to be honest, I was pretty damn happy about it. I guess that makes me not a very good person.

[Euphonious Polemic]

From the OP:



IN THE SHARED FREEZER. This is not privately stored.
Yes it i privately stored. The communal freezer exists for the storing of private property. That is the expectation. Jyust because something is in it does not mean that it is being provided for public distribution. There is no access being provded here. The container itself is private property, is labled as such and is reasonably undetrstood as such. I cannot believe how completely full of shit people are being about this.

Nope, you are factually wrong here. The freezer is accessible to the public. You have a duty to not put deleterious substances in areas where they might accidentally be ingested by innocent bystanders. For example, if you put poison in a jar labelled "candy", and put it in a public place, you would not have a reasonable defense to say "it was my private poison in my private jar"

The law is phrased as it is to prevent people from doing exactly what is suggested. You may argue that a person might get away with it, but that is different from whether or not it is morally or legally correct.



Hearsay. .

You apparently don't know what hearsay means. Here ya go:
Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.


In my example, the witness was testifying about WHAT HE HAD PERSONALLY HEARD. He was not relaying what someone else told him. Hearsay would be :

"I heard my friend Jim say that Joe Bloggs said ""this will serve that Goddamn ice cream thief right when he eats this and shits himself from here to Tuesday.""

[Larry Mudd]

Why are people so bloody concerned about the criminals anway?Likely because they're the ones who enjoy taking other people's stuff.Bullshit. Personally, I think that the satisfaction derived from such a plan is not worth the possible consequences (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Teen+faces+charges+for+laxative+brownies-a01611328398).

Just because a lunch-pilferer has no moral high ground, that doesn't mean that they're necessarily going to shrug off being dosed with laxatives as "Ha ha, you got me." The law doesn't have a huge sense of humour about these things, either.

The wording of laws covering this sort of thing varies, naturally - but you're not going to find a loophole that will get you off if the victim is a thieving bastard.
"Adulteration" means the intentional adding of any substance, which has the capacity either acting alone or in conjunction with the other substance to cause death, physical injury or illness by ingestion, injection, inhalation or absorption, to another substance having a customary or reasonably foreseeable human use.If someone has been taking your food from somewhere, and you leave adulterated food in that place, it's reasonable to foresee that someone might consume it. (Otherwise, why put it there?) Congratulations, you're a felon!

The OP asks for the best way to get revenge on a food thief. I'm pretty sure that the best way doesn't expose you to significant legal liability.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Yes it i privately stored. The communal freezer exists for the storing of private property. That is the expectation. Jyust because something is in it does not mean that it is being provided for public distribution. There is no access being provded here. The container itself is private property, is labled as such and is reasonably undetrstood as such. I cannot believe how completely full of shit people are being about this.

Nope, you are factually wrong here. The freezer is accessible to the public.
No it isn't. That's not what it means to make something accessible. It's a communal freezer intended for private storage. The individual comntainers are marked and understood as private property. The phrase in that statute that all the bleeding heart food thief defenders are pouncing on like oxygen refers to things like placing a bowl of candy out at Halloween.
The law is phrased as it is to prevent people from doing exactly what is suggested. You may argue that a person might get away with it, but that is different from whether or not it is morally or legally correct.
No it isn't. It's phrased to stop people from putting out bowls of poisoned Halloween candy in public cases. It does not apply to things that are stolen.
You apparently don't know what hearsay means. Here ya go:
Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.


In my example, the witness was testifying about WHAT HE HAD PERSONALLY HEARD. He was not relaying what someone else told him. Hearsay would be :

"I heard my friend Jim say that Joe Bloggs said ""this will serve that Goddamn ice cream thief right when he eats this and shits himself from here to Tuesday.""
No one is going to give a shit what Joe Bob says. That's still not proof. Joe Bob is a fucking liar. Fuck Joe Bob.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Likely because they're the ones who enjoy taking other people's stuff.Bullshit. Personally, I think that the satisfaction derived from such a plan is not worth the possible consequences (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Teen+faces+charges+for+laxative+brownies-a01611328398).

Just because a lunch-pilferer has no moral high ground, that doesn't mean that they're necessarily going to shrug off being dosed with laxatives as "Ha ha, you got me." The law doesn't have a huge sense of humour about these things, either.

The wording of laws covering this sort of thing varies, naturally - but you're not going to find a loophole that will get you off if the victim is a thieving bastard.
"Adulteration" means the intentional adding of any substance, which has the capacity either acting alone or in conjunction with the other substance to cause death, physical injury or illness by ingestion, injection, inhalation or absorption, to another substance having a customary or reasonably foreseeable human use.If someone has been taking your food from somewhere, and you leave adulterated food in that place, it's reasonable to foresee that someone might consume it. (Otherwise, why put it there?) Congratulations, you're a felon!

The OP asks for the best way to get revenge on a food thief. I'm pretty sure that the best way doesn't expose you to significant legal liability.
It is not reasonable to say that someone should expect to be stolen from.

Laxatives would not have any of those deleterious effects anyway.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Laxatives would not have any of those deleterious effects anyway.

From the link which you presumably did not look at:

Later that day, seven employees and five students suffered symptoms of discomfort, diarrhea, stomach cramps and bloody stools.

Ah, those bloody stools. A real laugh riot.

Anyway, I wish to thank you. I had previously only heard of your legendary debating skills. It has been an honour to actually witness them in real time. I especially liked your devastating line:

No one is going to give a shit what Joe Bob says. That's still not proof. Joe Bob is a fucking liar. Fuck Joe Bob.

That pretty much destroyed my definition of "hearsay" right there! Brilliant!

[Wile E]

It really doesn't matter if tampering with your own food to catch a thief is legal or not, what matters is that it could get you fired, suspended or expelled from school or beaten up if it actually harms someone beyond what you intended.

Revenge is just not worth it and the food thief probably won't stop anyway. Find yourself some sort of locking container that will hold your food.

[Larry Mudd]

It is not reasonable to say that someone should expect to be stolen from.I get your moral indignation. It isn't so terribly far out of line to think that you ought to be able to get back at pilferers this way.

Hell, if I were a top legislator, my first reform would make "the complainant was being a jerk" a valid defense against assault:

"Yes, your honour - I did break his nose, but he had his headphones cranked up obnoxiously loud on public transit." "How loud is 'obnoxiously loud,' exactly?" "Well, although I was eight feet away, I could make out every word of the lyrics, plainly. I could even parse the 'Dee to the Oh to the You to the See to the Aych to the Eeh' bits, and those usually go right past me." "And did you make a reasonable effort to persuade this young man to dial it down without first resorting to violence?" "Yes, your honour - he just sneered and then fixed his gaze on a point outside the window." "Witnesses, is this substantially true?" "Yes!" "Yes!" "Jurors, do you have a consensus about whether or not this behavior constitutes Being a Jerk?" "We do, your honour," "And what say you?" "Jerk, your honour." "Very well, then - the defendant is free to go."

My gut says that these reforms would result in a much more civil and well-behaved society. (I do my best to remind myself that my gut is full of shit.)

It is not reasonable for someone to steal. However, in the legal sense (which is all that matters here) if a pattern has been established whereby someone has purloined your lunch items, it is reasonable to assume that it's going to happen. If you are taking countermeasures against someone stealing your food, you have a reasonable belief that some bastard's going to take it, QED.

The law tends to come down pretty hard on vigilantes, even if the receiver had it comin'.Laxatives would not have any of those deleterious effects anyway.You don't think an inappropriately administered laxative could be responsible for... (wait, what is the crazy high standard required to run afoul of the law again? Oh, right...) "illness."

Some "common" side effects of the most popular laxative (Senokot) are "Abdominal discomfort or cramping; diarrhea; and nausea." Its severe side effects can include "Tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); kidney inflammation; poor bowel function; or rectal bleeding." Anyone with these symptoms has become "ill," genius.

[Shmendrik]

Well, I discussed this with a friend who's a criminal lawyer, and he said it's directly analogous to the issue of leaving traps in your home mentioned earlier in the thread. You could be held criminally and civilly liable if the prosecutor could prove (i.e. convince a jury) that you had put the harmful substance into the food with the intention that it be eaten by someone else, regardless of the fact that he had no right to eat it.

I know that Diogenes will obtusely ignore this, but in case anyone else is interested, that's what a lawyer told me.

[bengangmo]

Hmmm...is it just me that thinks a different standard of "private" applies to a communal COLLEGE freezer?

Sorry I might be juvenile, and while I personally would not steal someone else's food, there is NO WAY I would leave icecream in such a place and still expect it to be there in the morning. I would fully expect it to be stolen (or at the very least a few bowls to have been pilfered).

If I was living in the dorm, I would make do with the pint containers...that crap is bad for me and fattening anyway.

[Acid Lamp]

This is completely out of control.

For our theoretical court case to even occur a whole lot of things would have to happen.

1. The thief would have to admit their their own thievery. un-fucking-likely. At worst they would see the clinic physician whou would prescribe them something to fix the runs. That in and of itself is unlikely, as you can buy pepto.

2. The thief would then have to connect the dots to his now empty and thrown away ice cream container which may or may not be retrievable.

3. The thief would have to file a police report. Really, really, super unfucking likely.

4. Assuming it went this far, the cops take things like poisoning seriously and thus would have to determine the source of the problem. That means that the thief will eventually either have fess up to the cops, or get hung out to dry when they go around asking about the ice cream. Not to mention that the cops are going to look in about a million other places before assuming a laxative prank.

5. If they had the container, they would have to prove that the amount of laxative was far beyond any normal dose. Hell they would have to prove there was laxative in it! I doubt very much that you could do this from some side residue of ben and jerrys that probably never touched the stuff.

6. you'd have to prove that the owner of the ice cream actually placed the laxative as opposed to some other prankster in the building.

EVEN IF YOU GOT THIS FAR, all you would have is proof that the owner of a food item mixed some laxative into his private comestibles, which is not a crime.

You might, just maybe be able to get some minor cite for negligence in leaving food with an OTC medication mixed into it in a place where it causes a temptation beyond that of mortal men to resist. The problem with that comes back to the thievery again.

Og on a pogo stick people, quit being so goddamn frightened of your own shadows. It is embarrassing.

[bengangmo]

This is completely out of control.

For our theoretical court case to even occur a whole lot of things would have to happen.

1. The thief would have to admit their their own thievery. un-fucking-likely. At worst they would see the clinic physician whou would prescribe them something to fix the runs. That in and of itself is unlikely, as you can buy pepto.

2. The thief would then have to connect the dots to his now empty and thrown away ice cream container which may or may not be retrievable.

3. The thief would have to file a police report. Really, really, super unfucking likely.

4. Assuming it went this far, the cops take things like poisoning seriously and thus would have to determine the source of the problem. That means that the thief will eventually either have fess up to the cops, or get hung out to dry when they go around asking about the ice cream.

5. If they had the container, they would have to prove that the amount of laxative was far beyond any normal dose. I doubt very much that you could do this from some side residue that probably never touched the stuff.

6. you'd have to prove that the owner of the ice cream actually placed the laxative as opposed to some other prankster in the building.

EVEN IF YOU GOT THIS FAR, all you would have is proof that the owner of a food item mixed some laxative into his private comestibles, which is not a crime.

You might, just maybe be able to get some minor cite for negligence in leaving food with an OTC medication mixed into it in a place where it causes a temptation beyond that of mortal men to resist. The problem with that comes back to the thievery again.

Og on a pogo stick people, quit being so goddamn frightened of your own shadows. It is embarrassing.

Chances are though for a few things..
1. A "normal" dose of exlax is not going to do much, it is the massive doses or someone who has an unusally strong reaction that will cause problems
2. Its not going to be difficult to trace
3. Hmm....I eat your food, got horrendously sick, miss an exam and have the opportunity to claim thousands from you, as opposed to admitting to taking some food from a communal fridge - while I might get in trouble, yours is much worse. In any case it may well be out of my hands, if I am hospitalised for ex-lax overdose or because the pain from the pepper induced an asthma attack the investigation may be a long way done before I even say anything...

[Bricker]

Hearsay:
I just did a long post on hearsay. I'm not going to re-do it, but basically: a witness testifying to what he personally heard *is* hearsay, if it's offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. A witness testifying that someone else told him that a third person made a statement is "totem pole," hearsay, or hearsay within hearsay.

A statement made out of court that implicates the speaker in criminal wrongdoing is admissible, even though it is hearsay.

Intent:
Intent can be inferred from actions. People may be assumed to intend the ordinary consequences of their actions.

Putting Ex-Lax in food and storing it in a public freezer is unusual enough that a jury could conclude that the intent was to dose someone else. Or the jury could credit the testimony of the person who claims his intent was to eat the material himself. This is why we have juries: to weigh evidence, to listen to witnesses testify and to decide what version of the facts to accept.

So to whoever was saying. "Prove it, prove it:" the jury that hears that the accused complained of food being taken, admits taking Ex-Lax and putting it ice cream, could legally disregard his claims it was for some other, innocent purpose.

In my opinion, the chili peppers are a different story. There are many recipes that mix ice cream and peppers, and as a matter of law, I doubt that a reasonable amount of peppers would fall into the reach of the poisoning statute anyway.

[River Hippie]

Somewhere out there is a man that as tasted my jizz. It was on an Arbys Swiss King that was in the breakroom fridge. Yeah, Im lookin' at you Merle!!!!

[Euphonious Polemic]

Thanks for the clarification on hearsay Bricker.

And Acid Lamp - I'm sure you are correct on the (small) likelyhood of something like this going to court, and an even smaller chance of conviction.

However.... My personal morals would not let me injure someone (and yes, i think that kidney inflammation or rectal bleeding counts as "injury"), because they stole a small item from me.
The fact that I could probably get away with it does not really influence my moral compass.

YMMV (your morals may vary)

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

Well, I discussed this with a friend who's a criminal lawyer, and he said it's directly analogous to the issue of leaving traps in your home mentioned earlier in the thread. You could be held criminally and civilly liable if the prosecutor could prove (i.e. convince a jury) that you had put the harmful substance into the food with the intention that it be eaten by someone else, regardless of the fact that he had no right to eat it.

I know that Diogenes will obtusely ignore this, but in case anyone else is interested, that's what a lawyer told me.Yay! That $100K I owe for my legal education has finally paid off!

I'd also like to point out that, for instance, we're not allowed to discuss how to pirate movies on this board, even though tons of people do it, you're not likely to be prosecuted, and it may not harm the victim at all (supposing you downloaded something that you wouldn't otherwise have paid money to see).

I think a few of us are arguing at cross purposes. Some are concerned with the real-world implications, which may not be too egregious, while others are talking more hypothetically - in this thought experiment, would this action technically be prosecutable?

[Bricker]

I think a few of us are arguing at cross purposes. Some are concerned with the real-world implications, which may not be too egregious, while others are talking more hypothetically - in this thought experiment, would this action technically be prosecutable?

This is a good point. A legal blog (http://volokh.com/2010/09/13/hypotheticals-and-non-lawyers/) I follow made some excellent points about using hypotheticals during Internet debate that includes non-lawyers. Virtually every lawyer recognizes a hypothetical as an attempt to explore the implications of a principle or of a statute: change the facts in some way, and then ask ourselves if the law holds up, or does it pose an unintended consequence. Sometimes readers without a legal background read that same hypothetical ("hypo," in cool lawyer-speak) and think that a claim is being made that the facts of the hypo are the same, or analogous, to the facts of the original issue.

Here’s an example. Let’s say we’re debating animal rights, and Commenter #1 passionately favors legal protection for animals. Commenter #1, thinking about what law might be used to protect horses, farm animals, and pets, proposes the following rule: It should be a crime to kill any living thing. Commenter #2 wants to criticize the proposal as being over broad, so he raises a hypo: Imagine a person has a staph infection, and he takes medicine to help kill the bacteria. Is the person guilty?

To someone with legal training, it’s understood that the purpose of the bacteria hypo is to point out the overbreadth of having the crime include “any living thing” — a phrase that seems to include bacteria. But my sense is a significant number of non-lawyer blog commenters tend to see the obvious difference between the concerns of Commenter #1 and the facts of #2’s hypo as some sort of dismissal of #1’s concern rather than a criticism of the proposed rule. So the hypo might draw angry responses from #1 or others who support animal rights that #2 isn’t committed to protecting horses and pets or sees them as no more than bacteria that can be killed off.

I think our discussion here is similar to the problem above, in that the hypotheticals being discussed are not about the likelihood of real-world prosecution, but the legal sufficiency of the facts adduced to support a conviction.

If you happen to learn that, unbeknownst to even the victim himself, he has a horrible allergy to sunflower seeds, perhaps because you and you alone know that the victim was adopted and both his biological parents had this allergy, and you decide to kill him by offering him sunflower seeds one day, his death makes you guilty of murder. Now, you'd never be prosecuted, but the reason for that lack of prosecution is not the legal insufficiency of the facts: you have the requisite intent, you committed the requisite act. You're guilty.

The problem is simply in the proof. That's certainly relevant in a real-world scenario, but "Is this against the law?' is a different question than "Would I be remotely likely to suffer legal penalities?"

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I doubt that a reasonable amount of peppers would fall into the reach of the poisoning statute anyway.
Neither would Ex-Lax.

[Larry Mudd]

I doubt that a reasonable amount of peppers would fall into the reach of the poisoning statute anyway.
Neither would Ex-Lax.How do you reconcile this opinion with the fact that people are prosecuted under these statutes for adulterating food with laxatives?

[Ludovic]

Neither would Ex-Lax.How do you reconcile this opinion with the fact that people are prosecuted under these statutes for adulterating food with laxatives?What is this "reconciliation with the facts" of which you speak?

[tdn]

Neither would Ex-Lax.How do you reconcile this opinion with the fact that people are prosecuted under these statutes for adulterating food with laxatives?

He doesn't. He forms opinions and then digs his heels in. Rationality is no longer a part of his thought process.

[tdn]

Actually, and I'm being dead serious, Ex-Lax tastes quite good. Like a chocolate bar.

Good point. I forgot about that. The one time I took Ex-lax it was in pill form.

[Acid Lamp]

Neither would Ex-Lax.How do you reconcile this opinion with the fact that people are prosecuted under these statutes for adulterating food with laxatives?

Can you provide a cite where someone was prosecuted for adding laxative to their own food which was subsequently stolen, consumed by the thief who then manages to find a way to bring the owner to court? If you can't, then it's all piss in the wind because the situation is completely different.

[muldoonthief]

In my opinion, the chili peppers are a different story. There are many recipes that mix ice cream and peppers, and as a matter of law, I doubt that a reasonable amount of peppers would fall into the reach of the poisoning statute anyway.

How about an unreasonable amount of chili peppers? They're not poisonous, or able to cause actual damage. They just hurt like hell when you eat them. If someone took a bite of my 20x the amount in the recipe habanero ice cream, they'd feel a lot of pain, but not an injury.

I'm taking the position that if you substitute/replace food items with other food items in a way to make the food disgusting or even painful to eat, you haven't committed a crime, even if your stated intent is to cause pain & suffering to a food thief. Not that you'd never be prosecuted, but you haven't met the legal sufficiency of a crime.

Example: I bring tortilla chips and guacamole to work on a regular basis. They are regularly stolen by an unknown person. One day, I substitute wasabi for the guacamole, in the exact same container I regularly use. I have no intention of actually eating that wasabi. The food thief takes a big dollop of my wasabi, eats it, and spend the next ten minutes in agony with tears streaming down his face. I claim that under the statute that's been quoted in this thread that there's no legal sufficiency for this to be a crime, because the substance I used was just another food item, not a medication, foreign substance, or poison. Your opinion?

P.S. - I've done this as a gag, not revenge. I managed to slip a habanero in a salad when I was at a wedding reception. It was the groom's salad BTW. I've managed to avoid jail so far, but you can bet I check everything I eat carefully whenever I'm out with him.

[Shmendrik]

How do you reconcile this opinion with the fact that people are prosecuted under these statutes for adulterating food with laxatives?

Can you provide a cite where someone was prosecuted for adding laxative to their own food which was subsequently stolen, consumed by the thief who then manages to find a way to bring the owner to court? If you can't, then it's all piss in the wind because the situation is completely different.

No, you're missing the point. Diogenes claimed that a reasonable amount of Ex-Lax would not fall within the reach of the poisoning statute. That's false, as people have been prosecuted for adding Ex-Lax to others' food, which they probably wouldn't have if they had added mayonnaise. The specific issue of putting it in your own food with the intention that a thief eat it (which is no different, as long as the prosecutor can prove the intention - or at least that's what anyone with legal experience here says) is irrelevant.

[Bricker]

How about an unreasonable amount of chili peppers? They're not poisonous, or able to cause actual damage. They just hurt like hell when you eat them. If someone took a bite of my 20x the amount in the recipe habanero ice cream, they'd feel a lot of pain, but not an injury.

Not true. Chili peppers contain metabolites called capsaicinoids, and they absolutely can produce injury. Cecil did a column, in fact -- not available on-line at present -- on the physical harm that can come from eating too much capsaicin. Here is a study (http://ijt.sagepub.com/content/26/1_suppl/3) confirming that fact.

I'm taking the position that if you substitute/replace food items with other food items in a way to make the food disgusting or even painful to eat, you haven't committed a crime, even if your stated intent is to cause pain & suffering to a food thief. Not that you'd never be prosecuted, but you haven't met the legal sufficiency of a crime.


I don't agree. In Virgina, the relevant statute says:

§ 18.2-54.2. Adulteration of food, drink, drugs, cosmetics, etc.; penalty.

Any person who adulterates or causes to be adulterated any food, drink, prescription or over-the-counter medicine, cosmetic or other substance with the intent to kill or injure any individual who ingests, inhales or uses such substance shall be guilty of a Class 3 felony.


Example: I bring tortilla chips and guacamole to work on a regular basis. They are regularly stolen by an unknown person. One day, I substitute wasabi for the guacamole, in the exact same container I regularly use. I have no intention of actually eating that wasabi. The food thief takes a big dollop of my wasabi, eats it, and spend the next ten minutes in agony with tears streaming down his face. I claim that under the statute that's been quoted in this thread that there's no legal sufficiency for this to be a crime, because the substance I used was just another food item, not a medication, foreign substance, or poison. Your opinion?


Under the Virginia statute I quote above, this action is clearly a crime. You have (1) adulterated (2) a food with (3) some other substance with (4) the intent to injure a person.

Now let's look at the North Carolina statute:

§ 14‑401.11. Distribution of certain food at Halloween and all other times prohibited.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly distribute, sell, give away or otherwise cause to be placed in a position of human accessibility, any food or eatable substance which that person knows to contain:

(1) Any noxious or deleterious substance, material or article which might be injurious to a person's health or might cause a person any physical discomfort, or

(2) Any controlled substance included in any schedule of the Controlled Substances Act, or

(3) Any poisonous chemical or compound or any foreign substance such as, but not limited to, razor blades, pins, and ground glass, which might cause death, serious physical injury or serious physical pain and discomfort.


It's very clear to me that by placing your food in a commonly-reachable area, you are placing it "in a position of human accessibility" within the meaning of § 14‑401.11(a). But you complain that § 14‑401.11(b) prohibits only "noxious or deleterious substance[s]..." which excludes ordinary foodstuffs. Since wasabi is an ordinary food, you say, it's not a violation of § 14‑401.11 to secrete it in food, even with the intent that it causes physical pain and discomfort to another person.

So the question becomes: in North Carolina, can wasabi be a "noxious or deleterious substance" within the meaning of the law?

I think it can. I'm no expert on North Carolina law, and there appear to be no North Carolina cases directly on point, but in State v. Phillips, 364 SE 2d 196, Ct. of App. (1988), coffee was the predicate substance for a conviction. And in Aycock v. Padgett, 516 SE 2d 907, Ct. of App. (1999), the court discusses an example of a violation of this statute described as: ...distributing [adulterated] Halloween candy which might cause a person mild physical discomfort without any lasting effect...

However... as I read other states' statutes, I find the phrase "noxious or deleterious substance" most often used in a non-food context, such as laws prohibiting dumpin substances in lakes, and pertaining to the treatment of sewage. So it may be that this is a term of art that was never intended to apply to food, as you suggest -- the only problem is I can't find any case construing that term in the context of North Carolina's § 14‑401.11.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Neither would Ex-Lax.How do you reconcile this opinion with the fact that people are prosecuted under these statutes for adulterating food with laxatives?
They aren't prosecuted when the food is stolen.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Nobody is going to be prosecuted for putting wasabi in a communal fridge and having it stolen. It absolutely would not happen. You people live in la la land.

[Bricker]

Nobody is going to be prosecuted for putting wasabi in a communal fridge and having it stolen. It absolutely would not happen. You people live in la la land.

It probably wouldn't. The injury is small, the victim unlikely to involve police in the first place, and the problems of proofs of intent and causation are dramatic.

But ask yourself this question: I put arsenic in my ice cream, label it "Do Not Touch - Property of Bricker," and place it in a workplace fridge after several weeks complaining about my workplace food being stolen from that fridge. My coworker Fred take the ice cream, eats it, and dies shortly thereafter.

Would I be prosecuted? Almost certainly.

Now: what is it about the law under which I'm prosecuted for my arsenic crime that wouldn't also apply to the Ex-Lax or wasabi overdose?

Nothing. The legal differences don't exist.

The barrier to prosecution you're speaking of is a practical one. A prosecution is legally possible, albeit highly unlikely, for the Ex-Lax attack.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Nobody is going to be prosecuted for putting wasabi in a communal fridge and having it stolen. It absolutely would not happen. You people live in la la land.

Nobody is saying you WOULD CERTAINLY be prosecuted. We're saying that it would be a criminal act, as well as an immoral act. Yes, you could probably get away with it. However, that does not therefore make the act less criminal or less immoral.

And if you put an ice cream container in a public place it is certainly "in a position of human accessibility" Just because it is your personal container, it does not mean that it is inaccessible, especially if it is in a common use area.

Finally, it has been shown clearly that an over the counter medication such as ex-lax, given in unregulated doses, can certainly cause physical harm.

Bottom line: You can't lay a trap to cause harm to another person for retribution for acts against you that they may commit. You may not be prosecuted under the law for doing this; but it does not follow then that it's OK to do.

[Larry Mudd]

How do you reconcile this opinion with the fact that people are prosecuted under these statutes for adulterating food with laxatives?
They aren't prosecuted when the food is stolen.Indeed, people have been prosecuted in this exact situation. I recall a lively lunchroom debate about the injustice of such prosecutions, in the early 1990s, prompted by a reference to such a case in the Globe & Mail's "Social Studies" feature (basically a thematically arranged "Odd News" feature.) The editor had returned to a common (and easy to populate) theme, "The Seven Deadly Sins," and referenced someone who lost their job and was criminally prosecuted after exacting revenge in this way, with laxative-laced lunch. One detail that I remember is that the victim's claim of "mistaken lunch identity" was pooh-poohed (ha, ha) by the judge, but that the lunch theft only earned him an admonishment against such antisocial behavior.

You can be sure that this happens with a certain amount of regularity (ha, ha) and it is unreasonably burdensome to ask for cites for specific instances where the victim is a lunch thief, as there is nothing particularly newsworthy about a laxative dosing and it is sure to come before the courts more frequently than it is reported on. A legal Doper with LexisNexis access (of a sort that doesn't charge pe-query) should be able to confirm this, but a reasonable person should be able to make their own conclusion by reading the applicable laws; the statutes are clearly worded in such a way as to make this sort of "passive" poisoning prosecutable.

It doesn't matter if you think you ought to be able to drug your own lunch and put it in a common area without fear of consequence - it is still a really really bad idea.

[muldoonthief]

Bricker, I tried to get the nested quoting to work, but gave up. But let me ask another question.

Say I bring a ham & cheese wrap to work for lunch every day. It gets stolen fairly frequently. So one day, I switch to bringing in a sardine & kimchee & sriracha sauce wrap. I actually eat sardines & kimchee & sriracha sauce. Short of unrolling the wrap, there's no way to tell that it's not a ham & cheese wrap. My intent is that the thief will get a mouthful of sardines & kimchee if they steal the sandwich, and hopefully be shocked and disgusted, but if they don't, I'll happily eat the sandwich for lunch (far downwind of my coworkers). Is this a crime under VA statutes, and if not, how does it differ from the wasabi case? I've done no more "adulterating" in this case. I hope that the thief is injured in the sense that they get a mouthful of some seriously spicy food instead of ham & cheese. Is it only my willingness to eat the food if it's not stolen that makes this not a crime? What if I did eat the unstolen wasabi, just in smaller portions than I would have if it was guacamole?

I guess the point of my question is at what point does "I'm switching my lunch to something else that I like, but the thief won't, in the hopes that if they steal it again they'll be grossed out & desist" stop being a crime?

[purplehorseshoe]

This thread has lost all its fun. I was hoping for more blue-dye-soaked brownies, and less legal arguing. :(

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Nobody is going to be prosecuted for putting wasabi in a communal fridge and having it stolen. It absolutely would not happen. You people live in la la land.

It probably wouldn't. The injury is small, the victim unlikely to involve police in the first place, and the problems of proofs of intent and causation are dramatic.

But ask yourself this question: I put arsenic in my ice cream, label it "Do Not Touch - Property of Bricker," and place it in a workplace fridge after several weeks complaining about my workplace food being stolen from that fridge. My coworker Fred take the ice cream, eats it, and dies shortly thereafter.

Would I be prosecuted? Almost certainly.

Now: what is it about the law under which I'm prosecuted for my arsenic crime that wouldn't also apply to the Ex-Lax or wasabi overdose?

Nothing. The legal differences don't exist.

The barrier to prosecution you're speaking of is a practical one. A prosecution is legally possible, albeit highly unlikely, for the Ex-Lax attack.
Sure, if you change the hypothetical, you get a different answer, but that doesn't change anything about the first hypothetical.

[Bill Door]

I'm having trouble with the definition of adulterated. If someone added wasabi to guacamole, sure, that's adulteration, but if someone brings wasabi in an unlabeled Tupperware container that commonly contains guacamole how is that adulteration? I suppose you could say the vigilante caused the tortilla chips to be adulterated with wasabi, but counselor, isn't that over reaching?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Nobody is going to be prosecuted for putting wasabi in a communal fridge and having it stolen. It absolutely would not happen. You people live in la la land.

Nobody is saying you WOULD CERTAINLY be prosecuted. We're saying that it would be a criminal act, as well as an immoral act.
It would not remotely be either.

[tdn]

This thread has lost all its fun. I was hoping for more blue-dye-soaked brownies, and less legal arguing. :(

Then consider my idea that the ice cream is on a pressure plate attached to a rope that suspends an old-timey 10,000lb weight above whoever is standing in front of the fridge.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Nobody is saying you WOULD CERTAINLY be prosecuted. We're saying that it would be a criminal act, as well as an immoral act.
It would not remotely be either.

Thank you once again for your informative posts, which amount to:

"Is too!"

"Because I said so."

"It just is."

I realize this is just how you roll. Carry on.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I'm not the one alleging something is a crime. I still haven't seen a single statute saying you're not allowed to put hot sauce on your own food.

[Bricker]

I'm not the one alleging something is a crime. I still haven't seen a single statute saying you're not allowed to put hot sauce on your own food.

I haven't seen a single statute that says I can't pound my next-door neighbor Ed's head with a ball-peen hammer.

Of course, I HAVE seen a statute that says that I can't maliciously wound any person by any means.

See, that's how laws work. You will not find a law that says, "You're not allowed to put hot sauce on your own food."

You will find a law that says that if you adulterate food with the intent to cause injury to anyone, you've committed a crime.

That means if you add hot sauce to your food with the intent of having someone else eat it and get injured, you've comitted a crime.

[Euphonious Polemic]

I'm not the one alleging something is a crime. I still haven't seen a single statute saying you're not allowed to put hot sauce on your own food.

Thanks for moving the goalposts.

I have already stated my opinion that "adulterating" food with another food substance is a grey area, and I think in some cases it would be OK. muldoonthief's example of a sardine & kimchee & sriracha sauce wrap, I'd be perfectly happy with, particularly if (as he said) you're prepared to eat it yourself. Hot sauce? Fine, if it's just "really freakin' hot". Not so much if it causes blistering.

Here's a test: Would you be willing to eat the substance yourself? It it just gross or bothersome, or not tasty or would it cause effects that are debilitating?

[Bricker]

I'm having trouble with the definition of adulterated. If someone added wasabi to guacamole, sure, that's adulteration, but if someone brings wasabi in an unlabeled Tupperware container that commonly contains guacamole how is that adulteration? I suppose you could say the vigilante caused the tortilla chips to be adulterated with wasabi, but counselor, isn't that over reaching?

No. That's exactly what happened -- you caused the chips to be adulterated with wasabi, when the victim thought he was getting guacamole.

If your intent in doing this was to injure the victim, then you're guilty.

[muldoonthief]

I'm having trouble with the definition of adulterated. If someone added wasabi to guacamole, sure, that's adulteration, but if someone brings wasabi in an unlabeled Tupperware container that commonly contains guacamole how is that adulteration? I suppose you could say the vigilante caused the tortilla chips to be adulterated with wasabi, but counselor, isn't that over reaching?

No. That's exactly what happened -- you caused the chips to be adulterated with wasabi, when the victim thought he was getting guacamole.

If your intent in doing this was to injure the victim, then you're guilty.

So by that logic, if I kept the chips locked in my desk, forcing the thief to obtain their own chips, it isn't a crime? What if I just ate the guacamole with a spoon, and one day brought wasabi in the same container instead? What if the victim just used a spoon too?

[Bricker]

I have found a Pennslyvania unemployment case that suggests the conduct is prosecutable.
Raymond Jastrzab was fired after he brought Ex-Lax brownies to work in an effort to catch the thief who was stealing his food. After his foreman got sick, Jastrzab was fired. He filed for unemployment and the company claimed he was fired for cause.

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court agreed with his employer and denied benefits:
Tainting the brownies essentially amounted to an assault on a co-worker, as if a fight had taken place. We have consistently held that assaults on other employees and violent behavior constitute willful misconduct.

[purplehorseshoe]

I'm having trouble with the definition of adulterated. If someone added wasabi to guacamole, sure, that's adulteration, but if someone brings wasabi in an unlabeled Tupperware container that commonly contains guacamole how is that adulteration? I suppose you could say the vigilante caused the tortilla chips to be adulterated with wasabi, but counselor, isn't that over reaching?

No. That's exactly what happened -- you caused the chips to be adulterated with wasabi, when the victim thought he was getting guacamole.

If your intent in doing this was to injure the victim, then you're guilty.

I don't follow.

Bob brings in wasabi in the container he usually uses for guac, and sticks it in the fridge. Larry strolls by, sees green noms, and helps himself.

Using those names, your own quote above says that Bob caused the chips to be adulterated with wasabi. But that's not the case. Larry opened the container, Larry swiped a chip through the green stuff, and Larry lifted the chip to his own mouth with his own hands. Saying Bob "caused" the chips to be adulterated strikes me as the same as when little kids say "He made me!" Larry was, in fact, the one who adulterated the chip, as he is the one who made the initial chip-to-green-stuff contact. No?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

That ruling was incorrect. There was no assault.

ETA there's also no criminal charge there, only a ruling that his company had cause to fire him.

[Bricker]

No. That's exactly what happened -- you caused the chips to be adulterated with wasabi, when the victim thought he was getting guacamole.

If your intent in doing this was to injure the victim, then you're guilty.

So by that logic, if I kept the chips locked in my desk, forcing the thief to obtain their own chips, it isn't a crime? What if I just ate the guacamole with a spoon, and one day brought wasabi in the same container instead? What if the victim just used a spoon too?

I think it would be hard to make a case for "adulterate," under those facts. The sense of "adulterate" is to replace ingredients with other ingredients, or to add ingredients to a whole, not to simply replace the whole.

But Virginia might not be done with you:

§ 18.2-54.1. Attempts to poison.

If any person administers or attempts to administer any poison or destructive substance in food, drink, prescription or over-the-counter medicine, or otherwise, or poisons any spring, well, waterworks as defined in § 32.1-167, or reservoir of water with intent to kill or injure another person, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 felony.

Given the potential for wasabi to cause physical pain in high doses, I think "destructive substance" is covered.

[Bricker]

That ruling was incorrect. There was no assault.


So -- your defense to a ruling contrary to your position is to simply declare it incorrect?

Not sure how anyone can possibly refute that, Diogenes.

[Acid Lamp]

I have found a Pennslyvania unemployment case that suggests the conduct is prosecutable.
Raymond Jastrzab was fired after he brought Ex-Lax brownies to work in an effort to catch the thief who was stealing his food. After his foreman got sick, Jastrzab was fired. He filed for unemployment and the company claimed he was fired for cause.

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court agreed with his employer and denied benefits:
Tainting the brownies essentially amounted to an assault on a co-worker, as if a fight had taken place. We have consistently held that assaults on other employees and violent behavior constitute willful misconduct.

Sure, but he prosecuted for assault, or just denied the unemployment? That's really the sticker.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The person eating the wasabi determined the dose himself.

Not that there's the slightest chance in hell this would ever be prosecuted. Any statutory basis for a criminal charge would be so specious as to be laughable.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

That ruling was incorrect. There was no assault.


So -- your defense to a ruling contrary to your position is to simply declare it incorrect?

Not sure how anyone can possibly refute that, Diogenes.
There was no assaut charged, ergo there was no assault under the law.

[Bricker]

There was no assaut charged, ergo there was no assault under the law.

OK.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252538,00.html

Here's a story about a a kid who provided laxative brownies to students and teachers. He was charged with a Minnesota offense called "felony adulteration resulting in bodily harm."

[Bricker]

Here's the law in Minnesota:

609.687 ADULTERATION.
Subdivision 1.Definition.

"Adulteration" is the intentional adding of any substance, which has the capacity to cause death, bodily harm or illness by ingestion, injection, inhalation or absorption, to a substance having a customary or reasonably foreseeable human use.

Subd. 2.Acts constituting.

(a) Whoever, knowing or having reason to know that the adulteration will cause or is capable of causing death, bodily harm or illness, adulterates any substance with the intent to cause death, bodily harm or illness is guilty of a crime...

[descamisado]

Here's a test: Would you be willing to eat the substance yourself? It it just gross or bothersome, or not tasty or would it cause effects that are debilitating?Ladies and gentlemen of the jury:

If he can eat that shit, you must acquit.

[tdn]

I'm surprised that the more you dig, Bricker, the more you are finding. I was starting to come to the conclusion that a lot of people talk about doing this, but few ever actually do.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

There was no assaut charged, ergo there was no assault under the law.

OK.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252538,00.html

Here's a story about a a kid who provided laxative brownies to students and teachers. He was charged with a Minnesota offense called "felony adulteration resulting in bodily harm."
Not on point. He gave them the brownies. They weren't stolen from him.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Still waiting for an actual valid cite.

[Bricker]

Not on point. He gave them the brownies. They weren't stolen from him.

Where does the law make the relevant?

Whoever, knowing or having reason to know that the adulteration will cause or is capable of causing death, bodily harm or illness, adulterates any substance with the intent to cause death, bodily harm or illness is guilty of a crime...

It doesn't say anything about giving or not giving or taking or not taking.

Does it?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The person isn't capable of knowing they will be stolen and has a right to assume that they will not be. Admit it. You've got nothing. You cannot cite a single case of anyone being charged criminally because somebody else stole their food and got the shits.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

According to your ridiculous interepretation of that statute, by the way, you're saying it's illegal for me to put peanut butter on a banana I intend to eat myself.

[tdn]

Admit it. You've got nothing. You cannot cite a single case of anyone being charged criminally because somebody else stole their food and got the shits.

If somebody finds a cite for exactly that, you're just going to find a further way to split hairs and weasel out of it.

You're looking an awful lot like a Moon Hoaxer right now.

[Euphonious Polemic]

"Look, an argument is a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition. It's not just saying "no it isn't""

"Yes it is."

"No it isn't!"

[Larry Mudd]

According to your ridiculous interepretation of that statute, by the way, you're saying it's illegal for me to put peanut butter on a banana I intend to eat myself.Are there too many clauses for you to work out the pertinent bits? Let me help you:Whoever [...] adulterates any substance with the intent to cause [...] illness is guilty of a crimeThis is crystal clear.

You might feel confident that you would be able to persuade a judge that it was not your intent for someone else to eat a senna pod sandwich, but this position would likely be met with a jaundiced eye.

[Bricker]

The person isn't capable of knowing they will be stolen and has a right to assume that they will not be. Admit it. You've got nothing. You cannot cite a single case of anyone being charged criminally because somebody else stole their food and got the shits.

No:

Whoever, knowing or having reason to know that the adulteration will cause or is capable of causing death, bodily harm or illness, adulterates any substance with the intent to cause death, bodily harm or illness is guilty of a crime...

[Bricker]

The person isn't capable of knowing they will be stolen and has a right to assume that they will not be.

That's a question of fact for the jury to work out. Does the jury believe him when he said he put peanut butter on the banana to eat himself? They don't have to. But they can. A jury could conclude that he meant to eat the concoction himself and had no ill intent. Or they could conclude that he intended to cause illness.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

According to your ridiculous interepretation of that statute, by the way, you're saying it's illegal for me to put peanut butter on a banana I intend to eat myself.Are there too many clauses for you to work out the pertinent bits? Let me help you:Whoever [...] adulterates any substance with the intent to cause [...] illness is guilty of a crimeThis is crystal clear.

You might feel confident that you would be able to persuade a judge that it was not your intent for someone else to eat a senna pod sandwich, but this position would likely be met with a jaundiced eye.
They would have the burden of proof. How could I possibly intend for my food to be stolen? That would be preposterous.

It would never go to a judge in any case.

[Mangetout]

Haven't we strayed away from the important issue here?

"Will I get in trouble with the law for intentionally doing this wrong thing, which happens to be perhaps hard to prove I did intentionally and with malice?"

I don't think the legal implications matter as much as the moral ones. Stealing food is wrong. Poisoning someone is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. Even if you get away with it.

[Bricker]

They would have the burden of proof. How could I possibly intend for my food to be stolen? That would be preposterous.

It would never go to a judge in any case.

You keep using words like "never," when you really, literally mean, "almost never," or "it's extremely unlikely that it would."

It's true that they would have the burden of proof.

So we assume you wouldn't get on the stand and testify, "Yes, I put that stuff in my food, hoping he'd steal it and eat it. And why not? He had no right to take my food!"

If you did that, they could prove their case with your testimony alone.

[Sailboat]

They would have the burden of proof.

If I understand Bricker, and certainly that's not necessarily the case, he is saying a jury does not need a burden of proof for this and might just decide the "factual" matter in a way that you do not want, are surprised by, and ruled out. In other words, some parts of a jury trial might be out of your control and go against what you think is right. Aren't juries known to be unpredicatable sometimes?

[Tethered Kite]

Ha, ha, beat you to it by two posts!

Drat, The Second Stone! Now you've outed me for careless reading.

Well at least I know that I'm in good company, "all great minds" and so forth.

[Bricker]

They would have the burden of proof.

If I understand Bricker, and certainly that's not necessarily the case, he is saying a jury does not need a burden of proof for this and might just decide the "factual" matter in a way that you do not want, are surprised by, and ruled out. In other words, some parts of a jury trial might be out of your control and go against what you think is right. Aren't juries known to be unpredicatable sometimes?

Yes, but their flights of fancy can only go so far. A jury's verdict must have some support in the record.

But "some support" does not mean "uncontroverted." The jury's job is to weigh contradictions in the evidence and select which they believe.

A jury that only heard that Diogenes brought food to work, wrote on the container, "Do Not Steal," and placed it in the refrigerator would probably have no choice but to believe that he didn't intend for the food to be taken.

But if that jury also heard that Diogenes had been the victim of multiple food thefts in the preceding weeks, even after writing "Do Not Steal," on previous food containers, then they could infer that he intended this food to be taken also.

[Tethered Kite]

Actually I did seek revenge once upon a time when I was young and thoughtless. I questioned whether I should share the mishap online but maybe it would serve a purpose.

I found a rubber doggy doo, put it in our nicest little custard dish and neatly wrapped in in plastic wrap. Put it on the refrigerator shelf where my missing food had been.

Not a good idea. I grossed out the entire staff and got "the look" from everybody for a whole week.

Lesson learned: be sure when seeking revenge not to let your ill will spill over onto the undeserving. Or better yet, just skip it. It's bad karma.

[tdn]

A jury that only heard that Diogenes brought food to work, wrote on the container, "Do Not Steal," and placed it in the refrigerator would probably have no choice but to believe that he didn't intend for the food to be taken.

Would that actually happen, though? Would a prosecutor go to trial without that basic bit of damning evidence?

Although I suppose that a case could be made that anyone who laces food with laxative fully intends for the food to get stolen. It's otherwise completely irrational behavior.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Maybe I'm constipated. Maybe I'm bulemic.

And hey. if the cocksucker didn't steal it, he wouldn't have gotten dosed with my Ex-Lax. The lesson is don't steal other people's food. Why are people working so hard to defend the right to steal food? I don't get that at all?

[purplehorseshoe]

Maybe I'm constipated. Maybe I'm bulemic.

And hey. if the cocksucker didn't steal it, he wouldn't have gotten dosed with my Ex-Lax. The lesson is don't steal other people's food. Why are people working so hard to defend the right to steal food? I don't get that at all?

I do not agree with you stealing my food, but I will defend to the death your right to kill me with it. :D

[Mangetout]

Why are people working so hard to defend the right to steal food? I don't get that at all?
Nobody is in fact asserting or defending any such right.

[Mangetout]

Or to put it another way, arguinig that two 'wrongs' do not make a 'right' is not tantamount to asserting that the first 'wrong' is right.

[Acid Lamp]

Let's use a direct analogy outside of the food realm. Apparently some people here read "poison" into "anything I personally find distasteful".

Joe likes to go hunting. Whenever he does he always wears his lucky flannel. Whilst in college, Joe notices that some of his laundry items are going missing. Not having anyplace to dry his "air dry" only apparel he avails himself of the line in the laundry room occasionally. Joe returns from a particularly brushy trip, rinses his flannel and places it out to dry. He figures that if the thief jacks it he'll probably have fun with the poison ivy and bugs he's tramped through. If its still there when he returns, he'll wash it separately and be on his way. The clothing thief steals his shirt, and contracts a severe reaction to the poison ivy oils that Joe was aware that were probably there. Is Joe Liable? How?

[Bricker]

Maybe I'm constipated. Maybe I'm bulemic.

Maybe you are. But if the jury has evidence in front of it that you intended to dose a thief with laxative, and they find that evidence convincing beyond a reasonable doubt, then it doesn't do you any good to say, "Maybe I'm bulemic."

What would do you good, of course, is to put some evidence in front of the jury, like testimony from your eating disorder counselor, to allow them to weigh your claim against the other evidence.


And hey. if the cocksucker didn't steal it, he wouldn't have gotten dosed with my Ex-Lax. The lesson is don't steal other people's food. Why are people working so hard to defend the right to steal food? I don't get that at all?

The law doesn't permit you to poison a thief, even if he is a thief. He doesn't have the right to steal your food, true. And no one is saying he does. What we are all saying is that even a thief can be a victim of another crime, like poisoning.

[villa]

Maybe I'm constipated. Maybe I'm bulemic.


And if you could demonstrate that, at the time, you were constipated, or demonstrate a history of bulemia, then this would be excellent evidence for you - probably sufficient to guarantee acquittal.

Or alterntatively, you could tell the court that you had constipation at the time without any evidence, and so brought Ex Lax with you, and it would be up to the trier of fact to determine if it believed you.

(Oh well - trumped on that one...)

[villa]

Let's use a direct analogy outside of the food realm. Apparently some people here read "poison" into "anything I personally find distasteful".

Joe likes to go hunting. Whenever he does he always wears his lucky flannel. Whilst in college, Joe notices that some of his laundry items are going missing. Not having anyplace to dry his "air dry" only apparel he avails himself of the line in the laundry room occasionally. Joe returns from a particularly brushy trip, rinses his flannel and places it out to dry. He figures that if the thief jacks it he'll probably have fun with the poison ivy and bugs he's tramped through. If its still there when he returns, he'll wash it separately and be on his way. The clothing thief steals his shirt, and contracts a severe reaction to the poison ivy oils that Joe was aware that were probably there. Is Joe Liable? How?

In this situation, your intent isn't that the person steals it. You don't mind if they do, but there is a valid purpose for what you are doing otherwise.

A better example would be if a witness saw you deliberately rubbing the flannel in a patch of poison ivy and then hanging it out, meanwhile chuckling to yourself "that'll learn the thieving bastard." In that case I would imagine you have committed some sort of offense.

[Bricker]

Let's use a direct analogy outside of the food realm. Apparently some people here read "poison" into "anything I personally find distasteful".

Joe likes to go hunting. Whenever he does he always wears his lucky flannel. Whilst in college, Joe notices that some of his laundry items are going missing. Not having anyplace to dry his "air dry" only apparel he avails himself of the line in the laundry room occasionally. Joe returns from a particularly brushy trip, rinses his flannel and places it out to dry. He figures that if the thief jacks it he'll probably have fun with the poison ivy and bugs he's tramped through. If its still there when he returns, he'll wash it separately and be on his way. The clothing thief steals his shirt, and contracts a severe reaction to the poison ivy oils that Joe was aware that were probably there. Is Joe Liable? How?

First, let's dispense with any problems of proof. Let's assume that Joe is willing to testify as to exactly what he did and what he was thinking while he did it, and that the jury will sense his truthfulness as he does so. (If we don't asume this, then Joe is essentially immune; he can always claim he simply was doing his laundry.)

The state of mind you've given Joe here is either negligent or reckless, but not intentional. He doesn't plan for a thief to take the shirt; he's simply indifferent to the possibility.

This is not sufficient to make himguilty in Virginia: § 18.2-54.2. Adulteration of food, drink, drugs, cosmetics, etc.; penalty.

Any person who adulterates or causes to be adulterated any food, drink, prescription or over-the-counter medicine, cosmetic or other substance with the intent to kill or injure any individual who ingests, inhales or uses such substance shall be guilty of a Class 3 felony.

Joe has no intent to injure. He simply doesn't care.

[Bricker]

villa, you and I are answering the same posts in the same way.

Maybe we should work out a coverage schedule? :D

[villa]

villa, you and I are answering the same posts in the same way.

Maybe we should work out a coverage schedule? :D

Well it would help so I could finish this goddamn powerpoint and go home before midnight.

Then again, I really don't want to do it.

[Acid Lamp]

The state of mind you've given Joe here is either negligent or reckless, but not intentional. He doesn't plan for a thief to take the shirt; he's simply indifferent to the possibility.

This is not sufficient to make himguilty in Virginia: § 18.2-54.2. Adulteration of food, drink, drugs, cosmetics, etc.; penalty.

Any person who adulterates or causes to be adulterated any food, drink, prescription or over-the-counter medicine, cosmetic or other substance with the intent to kill or injure any individual who ingests, inhales or uses such substance shall be guilty of a Class 3 felony.

Joe has no intent to injure. He simply doesn't care.

snip. I'm not trying to be argumentative here Bricker, I'm just trying to understand the difference. How is that any different then say leaving out wasabi guac? I'm not planning for the thief to steal that either, if they do they'll get a nasty surprise. If not then I'll either eat it, (I love wasabi) or throw it away. it's my property, if I want to waste food, that's within my rights.

[villa]

There is a matter of plausibility at stake here, Acid Lamp. When you hang a shirt in a laundry room, it is likely to be plausible to a jury you intended to wash it later. When you leave wasabi guac in the fridge, it is less naturally plausible. If you can demonstrate a liking for spicey food, then it becomes more plausible again. The less likely it is to be in the fridge for your own use, the more likely a jury is to think you had intent to harm someone else. Similarly, if there is evidence you bitched and moaned about someone stealing your food in the past, how someone should get him, how it would be hysterical if someone left wasabi guac in there and he ate it, the jury is again more likely to believe you intended harm.

There are two things at stake here:

1) Did you actually commit the offense
2) Will a jury convinct you?

Whether you actually did it or not depends on your intent. Whether the jury will convict depends on how plausible your story is. It can be completely false, as in you intended the thief to take your shirt and get poison ivy, but a jury will probably believe you. Or it can be totally true, like you thought wasabi guac would be tasty, but didn't like it, and left it in the fridge to throw it out at the end of the day, but a jury may not believe you.

[StarvingButStrong]

I was talking this over w/my sister and she came up with a variant: suppose you start bringing your guac to work but label it something like: Don't Steal! Joe's dangerously hot wasabi!

So the thief either doesn't eat your guac (win!) OR does eat it. Then, after a couple days of having him steal your dip you DO bring in a bowl of wasabi, and label it exactly the same way.

Is there any way you'd be considered liable for any pain he suffers resulting from stealing an accurately labelel foodstuff?

[Larry Mudd]

Is there any way you'd be considered liable for any pain he suffers resulting from stealing an accurately labelel foodstuff?This seems a pretty remote possibility, but I don't see it being a very plausible means of revenge, either. Someone who's unable to distinguish guacamole from wasabi before conveying it into their face is very likely practically insensate.

[Bricker]

snip. I'm not trying to be argumentative here Bricker, I'm just trying to understand the difference. How is that any different then say leaving out wasabi guac? I'm not planning for the thief to steal that either, if they do they'll get a nasty surprise. If not then I'll either eat it, (I love wasabi) or throw it away. it's my property, if I want to waste food, that's within my rights.

Except that the idea that you'd make the food and then throw it away belies your intent to eat it yourself. It is strong evidence that you intend the food as a trap for a thief. Sure, you have the right to waste food, but a jury is entitled to assume you are an ordinary person who intends the ordinary consequences of his actions.

But sure: if you testify that you had no specific intent to have anyone else eat the food, and they believe you, then you're not guilty.

It's just when you say, "It's my property, if I want to waste food, that's within my rights," it seems like you might be thinking that they HAVE TO believe that this was your intention, just because you say it was.

[Bricker]

Is there any way you'd be considered liable for any pain he suffers resulting from stealing an accurately labelel foodstuff?

Yes. If you testified that this was your plan all along.

[Duckster]

It's amazing by the number of Dopers who want to seek harm and revenge against an unknown person for the sake of stealing food from a common location. Adding insult to injury, many of these same Dopers are playing weasel word games just to absolves themselves in their own minds that they are not doing anything wrong.

Practically everyone in college has friends, even the food thiefs. Play all the childish revenge games you want but I'm betting the thief has friends and sometime shortly after they are found out, they will know who came after them. I can see the innocent victim who punished the thief will get their own comeuppance the same way, probably after dark in a secluded area away from witnesses.

[figure9]

OK. How about getting someone from the electronic engineering dept. to make a very loud alarm that goes off when the container is opened? Or fill the container with those coil-spring snakes that shoot out when opened.

[Euphonious Polemic]

I can see the innocent victim who punished the thief will get their own comeuppance the same way, probably after dark in a secluded area away from witnesses.

But it's all good if there's no chance of a conviction, right? It means the beating is perfectly legal and morally OK. amiright?

:dubious:

[be bright]

Mehehehe, I laughed out loud quite a bit reading through the replies.

I actually like the hot sauce idea -- and the food dye one.

Whilst Googling this topic I also came across...wasabi sandwiches. :D

I'm really not too worried about any repercussions tampering with my own food as booby traps. Would any food-thieving girl here would have the guts to report to an RD and say, "I stole this person's food and it gave me mad runs"? Doubt it.

[Leaper]

I'm curious on a detail here: the expanse/definition of the word "public." Suppose the fridge is in a highly locked down, secure facility in which only three people have access. Still "public"? I assume so, but I'd like to know the logic.

ETA: This is asking about the phrase "public accessibility" mentioned in the last page, of course.

[be bright]

It's amazing by the number of Dopers who want to seek harm and revenge against an unknown person for the sake of stealing food from a common location. Adding insult to injury, many of these same Dopers are playing weasel word games just to absolves themselves in their own minds that they are not doing anything wrong.

Practically everyone in college has friends, even the food thiefs. Play all the childish revenge games you want but I'm betting the thief has friends and sometime shortly after they are found out, they will know who came after them. I can see the innocent victim who punished the thief will get their own comeuppance the same way, probably after dark in a secluded area away from witnesses.

I'm not trying to destroy said thief...other people leave angry notes on the fridge but what does that really do? All I want is to try to teach the thief to think twice before stealing someone else's food*, and the first method that comes to mind is making food undesirable. (Like positive punishment, ya know?)
*I never store my food in the shared fridge -- I only keep ice cream in the freezer because it won't fit in my tiny 3.5 cu ft minifridge.

And I'm just going to end this reply by saying...my university is very different than other ones (i.e. there will be no confrontations in dark alleyways at night).

[be bright]

According to the OP they already have a mini-fridge in their dorm. There wasn't enough room in it for ice cream so they put it in the communal fridge. The college may not allow them to have a mini-fridge and an additional mini-freezer.

That's the one I was talking about, and I assume that it has a mini-freezer. If it's not big enough to hold a galon of ice cream, he may have to bite the bullet and buy it in pints.

I do wonder what the thief did with the gallon container. Either he has his own full-size freezer or he ate the whole thing in one sitting. I find either scenario to be unlikely.

Could it be that several people thought that some kind soul bought them all ice cream, and the last person to finish it off threw the container away? Or does the dorm have a clean-out policy? I've worked in places where if you had anything in the fridge late on Friday afternoon, it would get tossed. Funky smells and science experiments tend not to accumulate that way.

I'd at least consider these alternate scenarios before launching into a habanero-and-laxative-ice-cream-in-a-capsaicin-covered-tampon-box revenge scheme.

Tahssa is correct. The largest fridge we're allowed to keep in our rooms is the tiny 3.5 cu ft fridge. The freezer is large enough for a tray of ice.

My dorm does have a clean out policy, but they clean out fridges/freezers every TWO weeks. My ice cream was in there for just under one.

Aaand...the thief probably had an ice cream party (it was only the half-gallon size).

Slightly off-topic: is there any way I can change the title to "Best way to stop a food thief"? Since so many seem so offended and misled by the word "revenge"?

[Acid Lamp]

It's amazing by the number of Dopers who want to seek harm and revenge against an unknown person for the sake of stealing food from a common location. Adding insult to injury, many of these same Dopers are playing weasel word games just to absolves themselves in their own minds that they are not doing anything wrong.

Practically everyone in college has friends, even the food thiefs. Play all the childish revenge games you want but I'm betting the thief has friends and sometime shortly after they are found out, they will know who came after them. I can see the innocent victim who punished the thief will get their own comeuppance the same way, probably after dark in a secluded area away from witnesses.

Yeah you're right, we all should just learn our place and suck it up when someone steals our property because they might have a posse. :rolleyes: That person stole from you. It doesn't matter that it's cheap ass ice-cream. Theft is theft and I'm certainly not going to fear for my safety because I don't tolerate thieves.

[tdn]

Yeah you're right, we all should just learn our place and suck it up when someone steals our property because they might have a posse.

So the only alternative is to play coward vigilante and drug complete strangers? Surely there's a middle ground.

[tdn]

Tahssa is correct. The largest fridge we're allowed to keep in our rooms is the tiny 3.5 cu ft fridge. The freezer is large enough for a tray of ice.

My dorm does have a clean out policy, but they clean out fridges/freezers every TWO weeks. My ice cream was in there for just under one.

Aaand...the thief probably had an ice cream party (it was only the half-gallon size).


Hey, thanks for getting back and answering my questions.

Any further developments? Has anyone else mentioned any more thefts?

[be bright]

Hey, thanks for getting back and answering my questions.

Any further developments? Has anyone else mentioned any more thefts?

I haven't taken any action so far, and food theft is something that just happens throughout the year (hence always using my own mini-fridge unless I have no other choice). Stuff like that doesn't stop if there isn't a consequence or a chance of getting caught.

As for your other question about middle ground, my number one logical choice would be to simply confront them because I think food thieves are generally gutless; heck, they steal your food when your back is turned.
Frankly, setting up a way to catch them in the act seems more complicated than simply messing with my food and getting to them that way. Haha. That's not to say I'm not considering a webcam at ALL (hey, maybe I should set up one that doesn't ACTUALLY work as a decoy -- if the RAs and RDs approve), but when it comes to considering my options, that one takes a lower priority.

Plus...you have to admit. Pranks are fun.

[tdn]

I've been curious about something -- how many people have access to that fridge? Are we talking dozens or hundreds? Is it possible to work with your RAs to either set up a camera or make general announcements about fridge bandits? Simple awareness on everyone's part might just be enough to solve the problem.

We had that problem at work a little while back. We ended up putting combination locks on the fridge. Everyone in the department was made aware of the combination. The problem stopped. I guess that means that it was the cleaning crew that was doing it. At this point, the lock is not even there anymore (maybe someone stole it), but no one has complained about theft ever since.

[pbbth]

Hey, thanks for getting back and answering my questions.

Any further developments? Has anyone else mentioned any more thefts?

I haven't taken any action so far, and food theft is something that just happens throughout the year (hence always using my own mini-fridge unless I have no other choice). Stuff like that doesn't stop if there isn't a consequence or a chance of getting caught.


Okay, here's the thing. The food theft happened because someone thought they could take your ice cream and have no reprocussions. You are now planning to do something that has been shown time and again in this thread to be illegal because you don't think the person who swiped your ice cream would file charges, essentially saying that you don't believe your actions would have any reprocussions. Do you see the flaw in your logic?

I can promise you that someone who is willing to steal your food isn't going to see that the reasonable thing was that they should expect to be pranked, they are going to see the reasonable thing to do to be revenge, possibly be releasing hundreds of millipedes into your dorm room during the night or waiting to see your name on food in the freezer again later and putting eye drops in it to get back at you for your revenge plan or some other horrible thing. And they will know it was you because all of your stuff has to be labeled with your name, right? Beyond that, if your prank backfires (you put hot peppers in something and this person has a horrible allergy to capsacin and has to be hospitalized or something like that) they will probably be willing to take the slap on the wrist for food theft to see you kicked out of your school and punished in a court of law. Do not fool yourself into believing that the ice cream burglar won't come after you in one form or another. Just learn to disguise your stuff or don't use the communal freezer.

[descamisado]

I'm curious on a detail here: the expanse/definition of the word "public." Suppose the fridge is in a highly locked down, secure facility in which only three people have access. Still "public"? I assume so, but I'd like to know the logic.

ETA: This is asking about the phrase "public accessibility" mentioned in the last page, of course.IANAL(ADPOOTV), but it would seem to me public, in this case, means any area to which you generally cannot (and don't expect to be able to) absolutely control or explicitly grant access (does not include illicit breaches of that area, i.e., break-ins, snooping kids where something has been locked or clearly placed out of reach, etc). Even your example is public because, although the facility is securely locked down, there are two people who have access for whom you cannot control their access. In terms of the phrase "public access," public means that which is not absolutely private and controllable, not necessarily that which is in an area freely accessible to (almost) any and everybody.

[be bright]

pbbth --

Seriously? Have you read my other posts?

Loads of other people have been saying the same thing you just said. I KNOW that pranking people with tampered food may come with consequences if reported/if something bad happens.

Now, I'm all for thinking things through before doing, hence not having done anything yet, but gawd, it's like you people can't let your kids play on a slide without warning them of the consequences first.

I've been curious about something -- how many people have access to that fridge? Are we talking dozens or hundreds?
I'd say about a hundred or so females have access to the freezer on my floor. (It's an all-female hall. Don't ask.) And there is a fridge/freezer in the lobby and another fridge (or was it a freezer?) on the first floor. Technically everyone who comes through our lobby has access to that fridge.

I'm actually very surprised that the RAs and RDs haven't done ANYTHING substantial to stop these food thieves. All they've done so far is tape notes to the fridge that essentially say "There are CONSEQUENCES to stealing food. Those who steal food will FACE THEM. DON'T DO IT!!!" in a girly purple font. :smack:

[muldoonthief]

Is there any way you'd be considered liable for any pain he suffers resulting from stealing an accurately labelel foodstuff?This seems a pretty remote possibility, but I don't see it being a very plausible means of revenge, either. Someone who's unable to distinguish guacamole from wasabi before conveying it into their face is very likely practically insensate.

I came up with the guacamole vs. wasabi example from this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=577257&highlight=wasabi), where someone did exactly that.

[Larry Mudd]

I came up with the guacamole vs. wasabi example from this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=577257&highlight=wasabi), where someone did exactly that.Ha! I hope she had at least had too much to drink before making that error. I have a hard time imagining mistaking the flat, matte appearance of wasabi for the oily, lumpy appearance of guacamole.

[Duckster]

pbbth --

Seriously? Have you read my other posts?

Loads of other people have been saying the same thing you just said. I KNOW that pranking people with tampered food may come with consequences if reported/if something bad happens.

Now, I'm all for thinking things through before doing, hence not having done anything yet, but gawd, it's like you people can't let your kids play on a slide without warning them of the consequences first.

There is a marked difference with taking your kids to the park where as their parent you have a legal/moral/ethical responsibility for your children as they play, versus an adult deciding to potentially inflict harm upon another unknown person in an act of revenge. It doesn't matter if either incident is ever "reported" nor if there are any repercussions from either. The deliberate meanness and act of revenge is quite indicative of the people involved.

College kids will do what they do. That hasn't changed since I walked the halls. There are two things that have changed, though. The world outside your little bubble has changed and become less tolerant, and college kids themselves have changed and become more self-centered and mean. Only you can change your own developing legacy.

[Euphonious Polemic]

I'd say about a hundred or so females have access to the freezer on my floor. (It's an all-female hall. Don't ask.)

Sorry, but I've got to ask:

Any chance the ice cream was used to cool down after the nightly pillow fights wearing nothing but bra and panties?


Yes, I"m a total perv. Why do you ask?

[tdn]

I'd say about a hundred or so females have access to the freezer on my floor. (It's an all-female hall. Don't ask.)

Perfect. I've solved your problem for you.

I'll just check which females have cold mouths vs those that have hot mouths. The process shouldn't take more than a few hours.


Have the suspects wear heels.