[Closed] Settle a Facebook squabble?

Premeditiation would suggest that it is a crime.

If I left poisoned bait out for an animal, would the animal be to blame? Of course not. It's a criminal offence.

Two crimes.

Assault by the sandwich maker and theft by Fat Luke.

One crime doesn't cancel out the other. Hanging's too good for both of them.

It was left as a trap, and clearly bait.
If they had added some ridiculously spicy sauce to the sandwich, they could claim that they intended to eat it. But essentially making it poisonous, is not something they were willing to eat.
Yes fat Luke shouldn't have eaten it, but unfortunately that's not the point here.

Arguing over the rights and wrongs of things people claim to have done but haven't seems a bit odd.

I resorted to green food dye in my milk in halls of residence as a student which worked well in preventing it going missing. Then I took the nuclear option and went vegan, no one nicked your vegan food back in the mid eighties.

Seems it's not a crime..

CDC estimates that each year roughly 1 in 6 Americans (or 48 million people) gets sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die of foodborne diseases.

If he'd died I reckon a manslaughter charge wouldn't have been out of the question.

Seems it’s not a crime..

It was enough of a crime that the CPS felt able to go to court with it?

Humans know right from wrong and stealing is wrong.  The food thief got their "just desserts" in this case.  No sympathy at all.

The argument would be completely different if the poisoned food had been left in a supermarket shelf for someone to buy.

That'd be jail time.

Same intent. Only difference is the location of the fridge.

I skip to the fridge in the hope that the bastard sandwich thief has taken them.

That right there is the problem. If he could argue that he had intended to eat the sandwich himself, he might be OK, but I doubt it.

I'm not saying I disagree with what he's done, mind...

Sounds decidedly illegal. Still funny though!

Weight challenged Luke never stole anyone’s lunch again. Job done !

Don’t
Steal
Food
Tough shit (or not.....)

Very very excessive. That had the potential to kill Luke.

Luke is a sandwich stealing douche, but actually murdering him is a little extreme.

There is an intent to harm, which I think would be illegal. At the very least, it's negligent.

Fat Luke deserved his food poisoning though. Dirty lunch thief.

I can't see anywhere in that linked bbc story where it implies that it's not a crime. It is.

Having had a week's worth of salmonella poisoning, given the choice, i'd have rather had a damn good kicking instead.

Food poisoning is no joke. 21 people died from food poisoning in my town in 1996. Many others ( a few of whom I know ) were seriously ill.

Seems it’s not a crime..

Because one person was found not guilty of a crime, it’s no longer a crime ?

Seems an odd assumption to make.

Arguing over the rights and wrongs of things people claim to have done but haven’t seems a bit odd.

Agree.
I get annoyed enough if someone nicks my [i]place[/i] in the fridge (well, not [i]my[/i] place, but the place where I put my lunch), so I think the punishment's quite acceptable, if it's real, which it's not. Probably.

OK, so Luke could have died but that seems fair enough if he's been stealing food from a fridge, right?

The argument would be completely different if the poisoned food had been left in a supermarket shelf for someone to buy.

That’d be jail time.

Same intent. Only difference is the location of the fridge

It's a bit different.  Food on supermarket shelves is offered for sale but when I stick something in the shared fridge I don't expect anyone else to help themselves to it.  What this guy has done is wrong and if I did something like that I wouldn't tell anyone about it.

It’s a bit different.

It isn't.

It's all about the deliberate and premeditated intent to cause harm which, in this case, seems crystal clear.

Not sure I'd go as far as intentionally putting Salmonella in a fridge, that could have infected everything else in there, potentially.

At uni someone kept nicking our beer and wine from the fridge. So went for a slash and half filled a wine bottle, and left it on top of the fridge (easier to re-cork than recap a beer bottle). Everyone in the apartment knew exactly what was in it. Naturally that bottle vanished the very next day, just like all the rest.

The cleaner was not a happy bunny the next time she had to clean our kitchen.

Nothing else went missing after that 😉

Would raw chicken, as described, be guarantee'd to be salmonella riddled? Could the sandwich maker argue he hoped it would just taste rank?

(this presents me with an excellent opportunity to regale you with a story of a mate who, despite being offered the use of a cool box, left a chicken, bacon and mayo wrap in hs car over a very hot and sunny August bank hol 2017 race weekend at torq in your sleep, before eating it on the sunday night. he was up all night retching, then, the morning after, was sick out of his car window, 30 mins into a 5 hour journey home to Leeds. Shortly after shitting himself. Didn't get salmonella though.)

I'd say it's going a bit far. The consequences could've been far worse. A bit of very hot sauce would be better imo.

Slight tangent but it reminds of this classic: A Sheik, with a well-stocked harem, is setting out on a journey across the desert.
Unbeknownst to him, all is not well in the harem. His wife and one of his mistresses are independently plotting his demise. The wife poisons the water in his canteen, while the mistress punctures the canteen so that the water slowly leaks out.

Question: who caused the Sheik's death, the wife or the mistress?

so removing the guard from a machine and sticking your hand in means that the company is liable for the employee doing that.

I suggest its lukes problem. while its not nice it serves him right doesnt it?

so Luke could have died

What if he'd stolen a normal sandwich, but was allergic to one of the ingredients? He could've died then too.

I’ll take “things that never happened” for 500, please Alex

If I was in charge of the country one of the things I would introduce would be the 'well you shouldn't have been there' defense. This would apply in cases where people murder burglars or trespassers get hurt but a variation on it would be fine in the case of the sandwich maker.
.
I would say morally fine, legally dubious, but this applies to a lot of things, the law is not a guide to morality (speaking as someone who has been in front of the beak for various animal rights actions...)

f I was in charge of the country one of the things I would introduce would be the ‘well you shouldn’t have been there’ defense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volenti_non_fit_injuria#English_law

...which in this instance would probably only apply if Fat Luke had a reasonable expectation that the fridge would contain poisoned sandwiches.

Stealing the sandwich was Fat Luke assuming the risk of being caught, not being poisoned.

Humans know right from wrong and stealing is wrong. The food thief got their “just desserts” in this case. No sympathy at all.

This. Serial rule#1 breaker learns not to break rule#1 the hard way is how I read it.

Can't say I've got any sympathy for "Fat Luke", although TBH my main reaction to the story is closer to this one:

I’ll take “things that never happened” for 500, please Alex

I would introduce would be the ‘well you shouldn’t have been there’ defense.

How about traps on cheeky trails?

Hoping the chicken would go manky was a bit risky if you ask me, I mean it could have failed to produce anything sufficiently toxic and Luke would have just got away with it again. Polonium, that's the way to go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volenti_non_fit_injuria#English_law
…which in this instance would probably only apply if Fat Luke had a reasonable expectation that the fridge would contain poisoned sandwiches.
Stealing the sandwich was Fat Luke assuming the risk of being caught, not being poisoned.

So if the sandwich had a post-it on top, reading "Do not eat, unsafe". Then it becomes Fat Lukes problem?
Assuming he ate it, choosing to ignore the note, thinking it was a bluff.

It IS a crime, because he plotted to harm.

Serves the food thief right though. No sympathy; don’t nick other people’s food.

Proving beyond all reasonable doubt that a crime had been committed would be tough however (Facebook mia culpa aside, that is). If I were on the jury I wouldn’t convict. Natural justice tops U.K. law. See ‘jury nullification’.

It's a crime against the person. You can't poison someone legally in the UK. Whether it can be proven is a different matter.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/contents

23. Maliciously administering poison, &c. so as to endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm.
24. Maliciously administering poison, &c. with intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy any other person.

It's also bloody reckless. How do you know the thief isn't immunocompromised? Or there is wider contamination of the fridge. And it's also a notifable disease in the UK, so an environmental inspection would be required of the site.

I had scromboid posioning from tuna at a nice pub on a hot suny day. Huge histamine dose. Fortunately it was eaten by a fit young(ish) cyclist rather than a frail old man, who may have died from the subsequent reaction (flushing, extreme heart rate...).

Two crimes

Three.

"I go to alot of effort"

Food poisoning is no joke. 21 people died from food poisoning in my town in 1996. Many others ( a few of whom I know ) were seriously ill.

They shouldn't have all stolen sandwiches then.

How do you know the thief isn’t immunocompromised?

If an immunocompromised person is stealing others peoples food then a Darwin Award isn't far off for him

If not a load of bullshit (most likely), it's the offence of administering a noxious substance with intent to cause bodily harm.

franksinatra - not a joking matter. Perchy is being serious (for once).

21 people did really die http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/154107.stm

World's worst E. Coli outbreak.

They shouldn’t have all stolen sandwiches then.

Chortle chortle!
A mate of mine was a bugger when he worked in the prison service. He once gave another officer a Blue Riband biscuit to have with a cuppa. Mark says, 'not like you to give stuff away Sam but thanks very much', Sam says, 'oh it's not mine, I found it in the cupboard'. (He almost wrecked a vending machine while on nights, getting a bag of crisps out that was teetering on the edge, he won.)

And what if it had been picolax liberally sprinkled?

Weight challenged Luke never stole anyone’s lunch again. Job done !

If there’s any truth to the story then Fat Luke  would have needed to know the sandwich rather than anything else he’d eaten in the last 24 hours was what had caused the illness, and also know that the illness had been caused deliberately by the poster for it to have had any effect on his future sandwich habits

The outcome of that would not be ‘both parties continued the work in the same jobs happily ever after with one of them being more respectful of sandwiches.’

I’ll take “things that never happened” for 500, please Alex

Aye, pictures or...

Aye, pictures or…

Pictures of what?

Fat Luke bent over like a greyhound, shiting through the eye of a needle?

No thanks.

And what if it had been picolax liberally sprinkled?

Advice for any Medical Students/soon-to-be-FY1 Doctors who may be on here. When Black Wednesday rolls around, if you find yourself on a ward/unit with easy access to Picolax, for your own good, don't just help yourself to the nursing staff's food.

There is still no evidence that either Luke stole the sandwich, or if he did that the sandwich caused his problems.

You are all making assumptions, non of which would be considered anything other than circumstantial.

Now if Luke had admitted to the theft, and the sandwich could definitely be proven to have caused his illness that might be a different matter. But any defence lawyer would quite rightly ask what else had this admitted thief taken that could have caused his problem.

If I had knowingly released poisoned sandwiches into the wild (or, a communal fridge), Facebook would not be top of my list of places where I would write a confession.

Just saying.

Also, correlation not causation.

Sounds like BS, how hard would it have been to keep an eye on the fridge at lunchtime and spot the sarnie thief redhanded

So a question to the he got what he derved camp

If I own a wood and I'm annoyed that people are damaging it by cyling in it. Can I set out to harm people using my trails? My wood contains no Bridleways? Logs round blind corners, wires across trails egtc?

I read about one where the owner labelled their food as poison and the thief ate it anyway. That makes it a lot funnier.

This one is taking it too far. Maybe a mild dose of laxative or something unpleasant in the sandwich, not actively trying to kill the thief.

Logs round blind corners,

"I didn't realise people would crash into them!"

wires across trails egtc?

Rather tougher to make the same argument

I do not see a crime. It's not administration of a poison as the sandwich owner did not make the thief eat it. It not someone selling poisoned food
It's going to far morally for sure but I don't see a crime

*makes TJ a sandwich

Probably a made up story anyway...

Is this not a form of entrapping? IANAL, a quick google suggests it’s a grey area.

On the other hand, running 240volts through a metal door handle to deter someone gaining entry...? Asking for a friend obvz.

The difference to cokies case is knowledge of the identity of the victim.

I suspect that would weaken the likelihood of it being criminal but it would take a proper lawyer to know (and I'm not going to pretend I know English criminal law!)

I say it all depends if they person who having their food nicked, tried/asked/labeled/remind people (fat luke) before hand to stop taking food that does not belong to them.

If warns where give, well I say fat Luke's issue!
No warning I think v harsh and bit over the top.

....and bit over the top.

It is indeed.

If people are going to make up stories on Facebook to make themselves look interesting, at least make it believable.
The flourish of calling the imaginary food thief “fat” Luke was not necessary. Dead giveaway 👍😂

It’s going to far morally for sure but I don’t see a crime

Because the sandwich owner knew someone else was almost certainly going to eat it, s/he knew someone would suffer as a result of his/her actions.

It's just like putting wires on cheeky MTB trails.

It’s just like putting wires on cheeky MTB trails.

What goes missing when a person rides a bicycle on a footpath?

Replace the rancid chicken with a smear of that morning's ablutions disguised with a healthy dollop of bransons' and replace the night in hospital with smug glee and planning what the fat git can be enticed to eat next. Would that pass the pass the moral and legal threshold any easier? Just asking like.

It's a crime, the intent was to cause physical harm... Rather than simply catch a petty thief.

I'd also have to question the "poisoners" logic, if the motivation was to cause the sandwich bandit embarrassment and ideally identify them, then either hot sauce (already suggested) or maybe rigging the sandwich with some sort of edible dye would have been more proportionate options...

As it is (assuming its actually real) he's simply out-douched a moderate douchebag...

I say it all depends if they person who having their food nicked, tried/asked/labeled/remind people (fat luke) before hand to stop taking food that does not belong to them.

I'm curious here as to what form this notification might take. I can't immediately envisage a scenario where someone is stealing food and a post-it on the fridge going "please don't steal food" is going to illicit a response of "well shit, I had no idea, you should've said something earlier!"

My own slightly less Jeopardy-and-lawsuits version of this tale:

In my last place of work, we had communal coffee, milk etc but everything else in the kitchen cupboards was employees' own food. I brought in a bunch of stuff: salt, vinegar, ketchup, butter, that sort of thing and stashed it in a far corner.

I don't know if it was a cultural thing or just one person, but people seemed to think it was fair game to help themselves. Now, I'm not petty enough to begrudge anyone a blob of ketchup on their chips or a smear of butter on their toast of a morning, but when I buy a half kilo tub of butter and get four slices out it myself before I find an empty tub in the fridge one morning (because who even does that and puts it back in the fridge so that I don't even know that it needs replacing?!), we're firmly into "taking the piss" territory.

I also had a bottle of extra hot sriracha sauce on the go. So one day on encountering yet another empty ketchup bottle that I'd used four times, I decanted the Sriracha into the now empty ketchup bottle and tipped the replacement ketchup into the vacated Sriracha bottle. Oddly enough, the problem went away quite quickly after that.

There was an infamous case in the UK years ago,maybe pre internet iirc when a worker sick of someone stealing his cocoa cola from the works' fridge topped his bottle up with caustic soda.The fridge thief drank it and suffered terrible life changing injuries,losing half of his throat and gullet and almost died.The culprit got a gaol sentence,6 years or so.The judge was particularly unhappy that even when the victim was writhing on the floor the perpetrator did nothing and didn't even tell the emergency services the cause.

It's intent to cause harm, I can't see it not being an offence of some sort.

Intent is the key thing.

Friend of mine had the same issue, someone was nicking people's lunches out of the shared fridge ( there were 2 or 3 small companies in the same building with shared kitchen areas) . After they set up a cheap ip camera in a descrete location overlooking the fridge, caught them in the act.

The culprit was never seen again once they were confronted (not by the actual footage) by the suggestion they were on footage.

No one was harmed.

Might be a thoughtless intent to cause thinking twice.

I’m struggling to understand why you’d make a fancy sandwich and then rub chicken on it. That’s a lot of effort right there. I would’ve just used Tesco own brand water ham and made it look enticing with salad and some kind of dressing. Fat Luke works in sales, that’s a far worse crime than food theft.

It’s not a solution I’d favour for that sort of behaviour, I’d go for the nuclear option. I have a bunch of Carolina Reaper chillis, it’s remarkable how much extra heat is added to a large amount of chilli from a tiny amount of Reaper diced into powder...