Also keep in mind that the type of person who steals food repeatedly like this is not likely to “learn a lesson” from getting mildly poisoned. It is more likely they will try and exact revenge upon the poisoner by putting a more powerful poison in their lunch, slashing their tires, or physically attacking.
How much is it going to take? I just tried it with half a teaspoon of McCormick brand red food dye, and got nothing. Do I need to drink a quart of the stuff or something?
No idea; I was just providing a possible answer to the question. I had to participate in an initiation many years ago and woke up pissing brilliant blue. Others I spoke to mentioned bright green. I’m assuming vegetable dye, but it was the military, so it could have been agent orange, for all I know.
OK, off to try blue next. Will report back after lunch.
See, e.g., Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971) (Homeowner installed booby-traps in home to ward off thieves; plaintiff was injured by one of these devices when trespassing to scavenge for FANCY FRUIT JARS. Court noted that “the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights in property.”)
“Oh, darn, it looks like my daughter got the sugar & the salt mixed up again.”
“Oh, darn, it looks like my wiseguy husband included a half-dozenspringing snake things in the tupperware. What a kidder!”
Reminds me of the movie “I Know What You Did Last Summer”.
“Ah, that’s one of our specialties. Covered in dark, velvety chocolate, when you pop it into your mouth, stainless steel bolts spring out and plunge straight through both cheeks."
I don’t know about urine, but my preschooler had a cookie very heavily frosted with very dark blue homemade frosting, and wound up pooping teal a day or so later!
What about just making food that tastes horrible. Cookies with a cup of salt or a sandwich gone-over mayonnaise?
What if you put food in a work fridge that, unbeknownst to you, has spoiled. Someone steals it and eats it and gets food poisoning. Can you be held liable, say for negligence?
Don’t do this:
The next time they make brownies replace half the amount of cooking oil with ipecac.
Don’t do this either:
Next time store the brownies in the freezer rather than the fridge. This coldness will hide the odor of the fecal matter mixed into the chocolate. Gives new meaning to the term EAT SHIT!
DO NOT mix a little LSD in with the item you expect stolen. This is illegal though the result would be interesting.
Using sour milk, rancid meant, and rotten eggs to make something you expect stolen might not land you in hot water. As far as I know it’s not illegal to be a bad cook.
Do you have a duty of care to ensure that no food you have left in a common fridge gets spoiled? I doubt it.
I was thinking that you could load it down with some of this- it’s a legitimate hot sauce, and nobody’s really going to say that you didn’t intend to eat such hot food, but you’d not only know who did it in all likelihood, but I’m sure they’d think hard about touching your stuff in any fashion again.
Ye Gads!
I tried some 3 million SHU sauce in New Orleans. It was just a dot on a pretzel stick and I was miserable for 2 hours after that.
And this company has one that’s 5X hotter? Yikes!:eek:
I have a friend who is a flavourist, so they have all the appropriate chemicals lying around. There was someone coming in from another floor to use their expensive coffee, so they had to lay a trap. They used a substance that is an ingredient in perfume: it smells of poo, and the reason it goes in perfume is that it lingers, it won’t come off (this helps the perfume last on your skin). I don’t know how they made it not smell beforehand, but hey, I suppose it’s a lab of people whose job it is to work that out. The culprit ended up being really really stinky for days on end, unable to wash the stench of poo off himself.
I think the idea was it wasn’t in the coffee itself, but on something else they touched. They didn’t ingest anything.
Surely that’s not illegal? It’s not actual harm to make someone super smelly, right?
Let’s see, doesn’t the Supreme LAW of the land hold “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
Sounds like that the juris prudence of the Judge was nothing the rationalization of a thief.
The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: John 10:10
And before those of you dam yourselves with the argument that the Supreme Law of the Land only applies to Government, “Of the People, by the People, for the People.”
So unless so had a reason for entering some else’s residence when the owner wasn’t home and authorize their entrance, and one such possible reasons-such as seeing smoke coming from the residence which makes boobie trapping your property somewhat foolish if you actually value the rights endowed by the CREATOR.
My change in emphasis.
Searches and seizures are something the government does. This has absolutely nothing to do with the crime of theft. Except to the rare contrarian that doesn’t acknowledge any search or seizure as reasonable.
This has nothing to do with “the supreme law of the land” only applying to the government, it has to do with this particular part of it being a restriction on government activity.
Now how bout you turn the other cheek and let me rob your other pockets?
Therein lies the legal vagaries of this idea, which others have also posted about. As one gets into the extremely hot sauces which seem to be sold more as novelties or chili-head dares, roughly anything over around 500,000 SHUs. The site HotSauce.com for instance includes a warning for such sauces:
*“Purchaser of this product hereby acknowledges the intense heat factor of this product and the element of danger if misused. This product is over 100 time hotter than a jalapeno pepper and is a complex blend of fresh peppers and extracts. This product is not a sauce but a food additive and should be used as such only.”
*
So “danger if misused” seems to open the door for civil and criminal liability if I left, inside a brown bag with my name on it, a tuna salad sandwich with a tablespoon of “Blair’s Ultra Death Sauce” mixed in for the lunch thief to help themselves to. Yet the part about being “not a sauce but a food additive” doesn’t seem to make any clear legal sense to a layperson such as myself. The dill pickle relish I’ll add to tuna salad seems to be an additive, though I’ll use more of it than the Sriracha sauce I’ll also use. What’s more, both the website and the manufacturer describe the product as a “sauce” in their descriptions, so how does this disclaimer effectively negate that? Can such a disclaimer with such arbitrary word choices truly hold up in a court of law as a valid warning?
How about sauces that may be mild to extreme chili-heads, standard fare for people from certain cultures, but quite hot to most everyone else? “El Yucateco Salsa Picante de Chile Habanero.” is readily found on the international aisle of most markets for a couple bucks. No waivers to sign, nor warnings on the bottle. Yet its unnaturally bright green color belies a seriously hefty punch which requires me to use it very sparingly. So if I replaced the dill relish of my aforementioned tuna salad with the better part of a bottle of habanero hot sauce, I could pretty much guarantee an unsuspecting thief would not be very happy for the rest of the day, and would be none too happy later when it came out the other end. It would be unlikely for them to become violently ill or have a cardiac arrest. I could foresee health complications if the thief had ulcers, no gall bladder, or some GI issues.
But assuming no prior knowledge of such conditions, would I be more liable in this instance than if the thief had a serious food allergy to a common ingredient in my lunch? “Yes, I really did intend to eat that crab salad and peanut butter sandwich for myself.”