# Best way to get revenge on a food thief? **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [September 14, 2010, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-way-to-get-revenge-on-a-food-thief/553691 "2010-09-14T03:12:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![purplehorseshoe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/purplehorseshoe/32/2996_2.png) [@purplehorseshoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/purplehorseshoe)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-way-to-get-revenge-on-a-food-thief/553691/181 "2010-09-16T17:46:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@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? > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-way-to-get-revenge-on-a-food-thief/553691/182 "2010-09-16T17:47:01Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-way-to-get-revenge-on-a-food-thief/553691/183 "2010-09-16T17:48:41Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > > [@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: > [@Va Code](#): > > § 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-way-to-get-revenge-on-a-food-thief/553691/184 "2010-09-16T17:50:33Z")
> [@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**. ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-way-to-get-revenge-on-a-food-thief/553691/185 "2010-09-16T17:51:00Z")
> [@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. Sure, but he prosecuted for assault, or just denied the unemployment? That’s really the sticker. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-way-to-get-revenge-on-a-food-thief/553691/186 "2010-09-16T17:51:06Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-way-to-get-revenge-on-a-food-thief/553691/187 "2010-09-16T17:52:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-way-to-get-revenge-on-a-food-thief/553691/188 "2010-09-16T18:02:06Z")
> [@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](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.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-way-to-get-revenge-on-a-food-thief/553691/189 "2010-09-16T18:08:51Z")
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… ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-way-to-get-revenge-on-a-food-thief/553691/190 "2010-09-16T18:10:47Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-way-to-get-revenge-on-a-food-thief/553691/191 "2010-09-16T18:12:01Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-way-to-get-revenge-on-a-food-thief/553691/192 "2010-09-16T18:26:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@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](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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-way-to-get-revenge-on-a-food-thief/553691/193 "2010-09-16T18:27:18Z")
Still waiting for an actual valid cite. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-way-to-get-revenge-on-a-food-thief/553691/194 "2010-09-16T18:27:59Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-way-to-get-revenge-on-a-food-thief/553691/195 "2010-09-16T18:30:35Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-way-to-get-revenge-on-a-food-thief/553691/196 "2010-09-16T18:33:29Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-way-to-get-revenge-on-a-food-thief/553691/197 "2010-09-16T18:42:22Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-way-to-get-revenge-on-a-food-thief/553691/198 "2010-09-16T18:46:19Z")
“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!” ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-way-to-get-revenge-on-a-food-thief/553691/199 "2010-09-16T18:48:55Z")
> [@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 crime This 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-way-to-get-revenge-on-a-food-thief/553691/200 "2010-09-16T18:53:43Z")
> [@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. 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… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-way-to-get-revenge-on-a-food-thief/553691.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/best-way-to-get-revenge-on-a-food-thief/553691.md?page=11)