374
Kinda got yourself to blame
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2026
374 points (99.7% liked)
Tumblr
469 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to /c/Tumblr
All the chaos of Tumblr, without actually going to Tumblr.
Rule 1: Be Civil, Not Cursed
This isn’t your personal call-out post.
- No harassment, dogpiling, or brigading
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, sexism, etc.)
- Keep it fun and weird, not mean-spirited
Rule 2: No Forbidden Posts
Some things belong in the drafts forever. That means:
- No spam or scams
- No porn or sexually explicit content
- No illegal content (don’t make this a federal case)
- NSFW screenshots must be properly tagged
If you see a post that breaks the rules, report it so the mods can handle it. Otherwise just reblog and relax.
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
This is a funny joke. But - more seriously - you don't need 12 jurors to rule in your favor in a civil trial. And sticking poisoned food in a public fridge with the full knowledge that someone is going to eat it is absolutely going to incur liability, whether you think the person stealing your food was an asshole or not.
I think the more important question is, are laxatives "poison"? I don't think they are as long as it was within OTC or even edge-case prescription doses (which admittedly sounds dubious for this totally real, true story), even if someone decided they needed to go to a hospital.
https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/student-teacher-laxative-coffee/
https://www.oftlaw.com/blog/who-is-liable-for-food-poisoning-caused-by-tampering/
Yes this is criminal. Poisoning or criminal tampering, depending on who's getting charged where for what and by who
Yes, sure, when you are administering even OTC substances directly to people who don't consent, that's clearly criminal.
But the student putting a legal amount of laxative in the teacher's coffee is distinguishable from adding it to something you own which you suspect, but do not know, may end up stolen and consumed.
We're really arguing the core legal issues of actus reus (adding a legal amount to your own food, and the consumption of the food itself) and mens rea (whether you intend to consume it or not, whether you intend for the other person to consume it, or whether you are neutral). But I think there are very plausible defenses here for both elements, even if I can see how either verdict/judgment is possible. That's why it's an interesting fact pattern.
OOP wasn't the one administering them, that's the point