just a little thing I have been thinking about

[eddymrsci]

alright, what if a farmer wants to prevent his vegetables from being stolen by a thief, he sprays poison on all his crops and the thief steals some one day and dies of poisoning, should the farmer be responsible for the thief's death?

the above situation is hypothetical

I can't decide, what do you think?

 

[goofyfish]

Clearly, the farmer's actions would not prevent the theft of his produce. His actions were
meant to punish, or make an example of, whoever committed the crime, and that is not his
prerogative. As such, I believe he is certainly criminally responsible for the thief's death.

:m: Peace.

 

[Alpha]

His actions were meant to punish, or make an example of, whoever committed the crime, and that is not his prerogative.

Isn't it? Every action and choice has consequences. The thief was not fully aware of the consequences of his actions, but that should not matter since he should not have done it. The farmer has every right to poison his crops. They're his. If he did so to prevent the thief from stealing them, and made it known they were p.o.i.s.o.n.e.d, then it's the thief's fault. If he did not make it known, it does not matter because it is still the thief's responsibility for choosing to commit theft.
I think that's what it boils down to. The farmer has the right to do what he wants with his property, ie., poisoning it. The thief is responsible for his own actions. Thus, the farmer can't be faulted.

Why is the word p.o.i.s.o.n.e.d censored?

 

[Tiassa]

Because it is ... does it matter?

Why is the word p.o.i.s.o.n.e.d censored?

I am unable to answer the question officially; hence I'll leave my hat off. But I will predict two possible answers, mostly because I find them amusing.

• Does it matter?
• Because it is.

In other words, the question has been asked before and I don't recall the answer being anything direct.

Personally, I treat it as a reminder. If it comes down to it, the site administrator can censor whatever words he wants. I look at the censoring of "********" as a quiet reminder that lets me say dirty words like goddamn, Republican, shitballs, and others in the meantime.

 

[§outh§tar]

The farmer did what he wanted to his own personal property.

That is like saying if the farmer was on heavy medication for some ailment and a cannibal ate him, the farmer would be criminally responsible for any effects on the cannibal.

A rather futile argument.

 

[goofyfish]

Hardly the same circumstances.

:m: Peace.

 

[fireguy_31]

what if a farmer wants to prevent his vegetables from being stolen by a thief, he sprays poison on all his crops...thief steals some one day and dies of poisoning

Farmer guilty of manslaughter - at the very least.

It would be argued the farmer had every intention of P*'ing someone, anyone - consumer, thief.....whatever. Think about it, what motivates someone to P* a crop? Ultimately, the motivation is to harm.

 

[§outh§tar]

Hardly the same circumstances.

:m: Peace.

The analogy remains unaffected.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

alright, what if a farmer wants to prevent his vegetables from being stolen by a thief, he sprays poison on all his crops and the thief steals some one day and dies of poisoning, should the farmer be responsible for the thief's death?

the above situation is hypothetical

I can't decide, what do you think?

Despite the irony and cleverness of the choice of weapon and technique, there is no question that the farmer's intention is to kill the thief. The thief dies as a result of the trap the farmer laid. Therefore the farmer is guilty of killing the thief.

In most modern Western countries, no one is allowed to kill a person for the crime of petty theft, not even the state, so the farmer can't plead that he was merely an instrument of justice.

In some jurisdictions in the U.S. you're allowed to use lethal force to stop someone who has broken into your house and is moving toward you with a reasonable and apparent threat of harming you or another. But if the person is outdoors the burden of proof is much higher, you or another must be in imminent danger of bodily harm with no reasonable chance of escape. Stealing a whole trainload of vegetables when you're not even there to see it, much less to be threatened by a lethal weapon, fails that test abjectly.

You don't get to kill somebody for stealing something from you. Period. Case closed. From a purely legal perspective, the farmer is guility of first-degree murder. From a moral perspective, the farmer is guilty of rotten judgment, tragic overreaction, a dangerously violent temperament, and a pathetic lack of imagination.

Why not just get a bloody dog? People have used dogs to protect animals, vegetables, and minerals from thieves for thousands of years.

This farmer sounds like a drunken redneck idiot who's just looking for an excuse to shoot off his brand new gun. Let him rot in prison.

 

[§outh§tar]

Farmer guilty of manslaughter - at the very least.

It would be argued the farmer had every intention of P*'ing someone, anyone - consumer, thief.....whatever. Think about it, what motivates someone to P* a crop? Ultimately, the motivation is to harm.

The motivation is preservation. Theres a reason that private property is not the same as public property.

What he does with his own property is his own business. That is like saying if Iraqi's fill Iraq with landmines and Americans invade like they typically do to take over Iraq, Iraqi's are criminally responsible for whichever American dies by landmine.

It is a logical fallacy.

 

[Alpha]

I am unable to answer the question officially; hence I'll leave my hat off. But I will predict two possible answers, mostly because I find them amusing.

Those aren't answers. They're replies, yes, but not answers.

Farmer guilty of manslaughter - at the very least.

It would be argued the farmer had every intention of P*'ing someone, anyone - consumer, thief.....whatever. Think about it, what motivates someone to P* a crop? Ultimately, the motivation is to harm.

Y'know, even if it was, it doesn't matter, because he has every right to do what he wants to his crops. The thief has no right to take them. In infringeing on the rights of the farmer, the thief suffered the consequences due to his own actions. Perhaps the farmer did it to eliminate some crops and had no intention of harming anyone.

Despite the irony and cleverness of the choice of weapon and technique, there is no question that the farmer's intention is to kill the thief.

On the contrary. There are many reasons that may not be so.

The thief dies as a result of the trap the farmer laid. Therefore the farmer is guilty of killing the thief.

It is not a trap. Even if it was with the intent of harming one who commited theft, he did not entice the thief to commit theft.

 

[fireguy_31]

That is like saying if Iraqi's fill Iraq with landmines and Americans invade like they typically do to take over Iraq, Iraqi's are criminally responsible for whichever American dies by landmine.

That's an act of war, P*ing your crop is an act of malice. Besides, the mountain hermit already pointed out the idea of intent

What he does with his own property is his own business.

Not entirely true within the context of law.

Consider: What if a thief wasn't P*d but rather the neighbors dog? What if the farmers four year-old child died as a result of eating the said P*d crop while playing outside?

It is a logical fallacy.

I thought we were talking about law?



Don't P* your crops South...

 

[fireguy_31]

Perhaps the farmer did it to eliminate some crops and had no intention of harming anyone.

Good point, thanks for bringing it up.
The farmers intent, in this case, would not be to harm anyone but rather destroy his crops.

 

[zanket]

What he does with his own property is his own business.

The law is clear that your property is the public's business. Ownership gives you only certain rights. The right to file charges against tresspassers is one of them. The right to kill in offense is not.

 

[Mystech]

Well, assuming that the poison is not at all pesticide related, and was genuinely intended as a measure to get back at the thief then certainly the farmer is guilty of manslaughter if not murder.

As some people (especially in the US) seem to like to forget, it is possible to over-react to a threat to your property, and there are measures of retribution which are worse than the crime that was committed in the first place. Leave it to a rural farmer to forget his own folksy proverbs about how two wrongs don’t make a right as soon as the message becomes applicable to his own behavior.

In other words, no it is not justifiable to use deadly force in every situation where you might stand to take a loss, and especially not when other less lethal options may be open to you. I'm fairly certain that there are some laws about this some where or another, but I'm not as well versed on the use of Deadly Force as I should be (I'll go get my concealed carry permit, the state of Arizona will make me take a class like that before letting me pay the fee and get the license).

Along that vein, I once saw a show about mandatory classes on the moral and legal issues of lethal force on the Outdoor Life Network (or something like that, I was channel surfing at the time) and they had a clip from some classroom or other which displayed some Forman for a construction sight or the like and he was arguing with the instructor over whether or not it'd be right of him to shoot some kids that had been stealing tools or materials from his site at night. The instructor informed him that you can't just go around shooting people, and that a concealed weapon is only for when your own life is in immediate danger. The foreman of course just crossed his arms and huffed with a glum look on his face that seemed to imply he'd been disillusioned with the idea of owning a gun for his "protection" and was beginning to ponder the pussification of the United States. I think that bringing up this example might lend a little more real world perspective to this hypothetical situation; It is a common view in America that you should have the right to shoot anyone who wrongs you.

It may be easy to fall into the trap of thinking that any action you take to protect your property is justified because the actions of the thief are so clearly unjust, but as with any form of punishment, if it does not fit the crime then all you've done is made the situation worse.

 

[§outh§tar]

That's an act of war, P*ing your crop is an act of malice. Besides, the mountain hermit already pointed out the idea of intent

Oh, so in war time, it becomes acceptable? But when it comes to agriculture it's malicious?

Not entirely true within the context of law.

It's either true or it's not true.

Consider: What if a thief wasn't P*d but rather the neighbors dog? What if the farmers four year-old child died as a result of eating the said P*d crop while playing outside?

That is an entirely different scenario. The parent has control over the child and his dog.

I thought we were talking about law?

Doesn't mean the argument makes sense.

Don't P* your crops South...

Don't pee in my crops? Shucks..

 

[fireguy_31]

it becomes acceptable?

This is EM&J, not Free Thoughts. Acceptable has nothing to do with it here.

 

[Tiassa]

How is one's life put in immediate danger by Joe Thief stealing crops? How would poisoning the crops solve that problem in time to save one's life?

 

[Mystech]

How is one's life put in immediate danger by Joe Thief stealing crops? How would poisoning the crops solve that problem in time to save one's life?

Exactly, it's entirely an act of revenge, there's no purpose served by it. In fact for the poison to do it's job the thief would have to steel some of the crops in the first place, so the damage is done already. Also, there's things to take in account such as the question of whether or not this theif is just feeding himself with this stuff or if there are others (possably unaware that their cabbage is hot) who will end up being ******** as well.

 

[Alpha]

Consider: What if a thief wasn't P*d but rather the neighbors dog? What if the farmers four year-old child died as a result of eating the said P*d crop while playing outside?

Neighbor's dog: partly accidental, partly the fault of the neighbor for letting their dog trespass, partly the farmer's fault for not preventing the trespass.
For the child: mainly the farmer's fault for not preventing it.

I thought we were talking about law?

I thought we were talking about ethics & responsibility.

The law is clear that your property is the public's business. Ownership gives you only certain rights. The right to file charges against tresspassers is one of them. The right to kill in offense is not.

It is also clear that the law is not always right.

Well, assuming that the poison is not at all pesticide related, and was genuinely intended as a measure to get back at the thief then certainly the farmer is guilty of manslaughter if not murder.

Disagree. One has the right to protect themselves and their property. It was the thief's choice (though not his right) to steal, and he's responsible for his own actions. The farmer did not induce the theif to steal, therefore claims no responsibility.

As some people (especially in the US) seem to like to forget, it is possible to over-react to a threat to your property, and there are measures of retribution which are worse than the crime that was committed in the first place.

Agreed.

Along that vein, I once saw a show about mandatory classes on the moral and legal issues of lethal force on the Outdoor Life Network (or something like that, I was channel surfing at the time) and they had a clip from some classroom or other which displayed some Forman for a construction sight or the like and he was arguing with the instructor over whether or not it'd be right of him to shoot some kids that had been stealing tools or materials from his site at night. The instructor informed him that you can't just go around shooting people, and that a concealed weapon is only for when your own life is in immediate danger. The foreman of course just crossed his arms and huffed with a glum look on his face that seemed to imply he'd been disillusioned with the idea of owning a gun for his "protection" and was beginning to ponder the pussification of the United States. I think that bringing up this example might lend a little more real world perspective to this hypothetical situation;

They're just kids and have no reasonable expectation of being shot. In such a case, the punishment would not fit the crime. With the farmer and thief, it's a different situation.
I just went back and read the OP, and it does imply the farmer suspected the crops would be stolen, and that it was done to punish a would-be thief. In this case, the punishment does not fit the crime as well, and I would hold the farmer accountable. I'll leave the previous parts of my post intact as they made valid points.

If the farmer had done it for another reason. ie., to destroy some crops, then he would not be accountable, as he has the right to do so. It comes down to intent.