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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 
Nobody is in fact asserting or defending any such right.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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…)
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.
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:
Joe has no intent to injure. He simply doesn’t care.
villa, you and I are answering the same posts in the same way.
Maybe we should work out a coverage schedule?
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.