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

[stealthyeliminator]

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

I disagree. It isn't being debated whether the act is moral, rather, what's being debated is the value of and the value of adhering to reason and morality. In other words, people know damned well it isn't moral, and they simply want an excuse for themselves to do it anyway.

 

[Freedom1Man]

So far, if labeled as containing cyanide (which all cigarettes seem to contain) then it would be legal.

Odd though that people seem to believe that the one being robbed is not a victim.

I would liken the cigarettes being in a LOCKED area (car, shed, bunker, house, etc) to the same as any thing else. Same as storing coolant in empty plastic bottles like those used for sports drinks or juice. If it is your property and you are not actually harming anyone, then it should be perfectly legal. Like you getting charged when some, wonderful, human being desides to break into your car/house and kill themselves with your gun, you should be liable?

If you had bad sushi sitting in your car and someone steals it, eats it and dies, you should be charged?

If I have capsaicin paintballs and some jerk steals those and used them to much harm to themselves and friend, I would get punished?

Where did they get this item that they died using?

Joe's car.

Did Joes give them the item?

No.

So they stole it from Joe and killed themselves with it?

Yes, which is why Joe needs to be punished.

.....

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Odd though that people seem to believe that the one being robbed is not a victim.

Clearly nobody is arguing that - they are arguing that remote, uncontrolled, unmonitored, unguided, indiscriminate lethal force against unknown persons is not a justifiable or reasonable or moral response to petty theft of a $4 pack of cigarettes, and they are absolutely right.

I think really what you are questioning is whether intent is a factor. The fact that you are essentially "playing dumb" about the danger to others that your little trap would pose, posing the danger actually being the purpose behind laying the trap in the first place, suggests to me that you really deep down believe it is a factor and that's why you are trying to trick yourself into believing that the intent to harm others isn't really there.

I don't know the laws in your area and won't waste my time looking them up. As bagpiper eluded, this course of action shouldn't even be a consideration of a decent person. But I would think this sort of action would at a minimum be criminally negligent.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Clearly nobody is arguing that - they are arguing that remote, uncontrolled, unmonitored, unguided, indiscriminate lethal force against unknown persons is not a justifiable or reasonable or moral response to petty theft of a $4 pack of cigarettes, and they are absolutely right.

I think really what you are questioning is whether intent is a factor. The fact that you are essentially "playing dumb" about the danger to others that your little trap would pose, posing the danger actually being the purpose behind laying the trap in the first place, suggests to me that you really deep down believe it is a factor and that's why you are trying to trick yourself into believing that the intent to harm others isn't really there.

I don't know the laws in your area and won't waste my time looking them up. As bagpiper eluded, this course of action shouldn't even be a consideration of a decent person. But I would think this sort of action would at a minimum be criminally negligent.

4$ for cigarettes? Where do you live? That would not even cover the tax on them here. They are about 10$ a pack here.

I am arguing, that you should be legally able to do what ever you wish with what you own. That if someone steals your property and dies from using it or causes others to die that is not on the victim of the theft but rather it would be on the thief.

Then again, I liked some of the anti-car thief shown in some of the sci-fi movies, where the would be thief gets cooked for their troubles.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[solus]

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

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

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

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

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

Charles

so mate, recent examples of how a lack of proper conviction was applied to the individual in dallas, or the individual in Baton Rouge, or the individual in MN, or the individual in Baltimore, or, or,or...

let's see the point in time for the individual in dallas came when the chief grew tired of ...you may use whatever spin the chief is saying today.
the point for the individual in Baton Rouge?
the point for the individual in MN?
the point for the individual in Baltimore?

and the list goes on of individuals doesn't it and has for quite awhile...

mate, the philosophically rhetoric you are spewing was developed to incite guilt, as throughout history...we humans have experimented on other humans indiscriminately and when said experiments failed...the tormentors then discarded their remains like so much trash or sweep up their ashes and disposed of them in a dust bin without so much as a by your leave.

i suppose ISIS considers their 'mercy killings' a methodology of ridding society of nonbelievers, just as the Turks did to the Armenians, or what has been going on in Africa countries like for the last century...oh wait, that is called genocide isn't it...

so your view of who is terminated by the police is no different than those of the past.

ipse

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

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

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

Every human being has a right to life.

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

Retributive lethal force is sometimes justified but only when done by the government. Which is moral yes?

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

So far, if labeled as containing cyanide (which all cigarettes seem to contain) then it would be legal.

Odd though that people seem to believe that the one being robbed is not a victim.

I would liken the cigarettes being in a LOCKED area (car, shed, bunker, house, etc) to the same as any thing else. Same as storing coolant in empty plastic bottles like those used for sports drinks or juice. If it is your property and you are not actually harming anyone, then it should be perfectly legal. Like you getting charged when some, wonderful, human being desides to break into your car/house and kill themselves with your gun, you should be liable?

If you had bad sushi sitting in your car and someone steals it, eats it and dies, you should be charged?

If I have capsaicin paintballs and some jerk steals those and used them to much harm to themselves and friend, I would get punished?

Where did they get this item that they died using?

Joe's car.

Did Joes give them the item?

No.

So they stole it from Joe and killed themselves with it?

Yes, which is why Joe needs to be punished.

.....

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

For what it's worth I agree with you as far as I don't think it should be illegal...
But I disagree with you morally. Just out of curiosity if it WAS legal to kill someone for stealing from you would you do it?
If our system was such that the government called you and told you they found, tried and convicted the thief that robbed you and you have the option to come on down to the station and personally shoot the the thief to death would you do it?

 

[WalkingWolf]

It is perfectly legal to lace your own leather...

 

[Freedom1Man]

For what it's worth I agree with you as far as I don't think it should be illegal...
But I disagree with you morally. Just out of curiosity if it WAS legal to kill someone for stealing from you would you do it?
If our system was such that the government called you and told you they found, tried and convicted the thief that robbed you and you have the option to come on down to the station and personally shoot the the thief to death would you do it?

It depends. If I catch them in the act, I may use lawful deadly force to stop them.

If they are caught after the fact then allow our (in)justice system work them over.

I am more interested in allowing them to kill themselves with what they have stolen.


Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[Va_Nemo]

I am more interested in allowing them to kill themselves with what they have stolen.

That would be bad. Do it and you will be prosecuted and very likely convicted and jailed.

Nemo

 

[davidmcbeth]

And yet you guys do nothing to stop the wifey from cooking ....

 

[Freedom1Man]

And yet you guys do nothing to stop the wifey from cooking ....

Your wife?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[Freedom1Man]

That would be bad. Do it and you will be prosecuted and very likely convicted and jailed.

Nemo

That sentiment applies to anything. Car, saw, knife, etc etc.

Why should I not smile when they kill themselves on/with stolen goods?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

That sentiment applies to anything. Car, saw, knife, etc etc.

Why should I not smile when they kill themselves on/with stolen goods?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Are you actually asking someone to convince you, or are you just ******* into the wind?

 

[Griz]

Interesting mental exercise. Always been a fan of Darwinism.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Are you actually asking someone to convince you, or are you just ******* into the wind?

This thread was more a mental exercise.

If leaving poison secured in your space and someone steals it and dies, then how could you be held liable.

.......

Oh and if someone could show any such law as requested at thr start.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,

This thread was more a mental exercise.

If leaving poison secured in your space and someone steals it and dies, then how could you be held liable.

.......

Oh and if someone could show any such law as requested at thr start.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

I think I see a chink in the proposal,,, Leaving Poison that may be stolen, and kill the thief,, thats OK...
We are assuming that its the thief that eats and dies from the stolen poison.
OTOH,,, Leaving poisoned Cigarettes,, that may be stolen, and they kill the smoking thief,, thats a bad thing,,,
Especially,,, if the thief unknowingly shares the stolen, poisoned, cigarettes with friends, kids and/or others!

BTW it is illegal in our state to set a spring trap, booby trap, that sort of thing to catch or harm a thief!

I do like the idea of rigging a car, a thief may want to prowl, to lock him in and set off the alarm
so he can be properly caught in the act,,, but not harmed...

 

[Tacitus42]

Told ya to stay away from this guy.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[solus]

per your request: RCW 9A.16.070 1(b)

ipse

 

[stealthyeliminator]

That sentiment applies to anything. Car, saw, knife, etc etc.

Why should I not smile when they kill themselves on/with stolen goods?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

No, the sentiment doesn't apply to anything.

The sentiment you're expressing is that you would feel satisfaction from modifying an object purposefully so that it harms other individuals by surprise.

I don't modify my car, saw, knife, etc, with the purpose of making those items harmful or dangerous to others by surprise. Granted, they may be harmful if used improperly or carelessly, but that is no surprise, and I've not modified them purposefully in order that they will cause that harm.

I do not revel in the loss of life, even that of a thief.