why would that be illegal?
- Home
- Board: /pol/ - Politically Incorrect
- Reading: why would that be illegal?
In 2013 a hungarian man, whose property was regularly looted by thieves decided to do something about it, and added anti-freezer to HIS OWN wine, what he stored in HIS OWN buttery, in HIS OWN house. The looter of course took it without permission, and managed to drink the wine with his friends. In the end the robber died and five other needed medical attention.
http://journalstar.com/news/world/europe/hungarian-gets-years-in-prison-for-poisoning-wine-thief/article_089a33c0-8845-5586-8bee-347f4625adf3.html
according to the judge, the farmer's intention was hurting and or killing multiple people, but why is it illegal to store poisonous food in your home, if the only one who could get to it rightfully, is you.
>>55492641
Because he had intent to poison and kill them
It isnt that hard to understand
Also stealing /= death sentence
pic related it's the judge while announcing the sentence
Intent is supported by the fact he typically did not store poisoned items, but only began doing so after being a victim of theft, where he could reasonably be expected to know that such bottle would be looted then consumed.
When you know you live in a corrupt society looking to turn victims into criminals, why would you openly admit to this? Do it, but keep it a fucking secret.
>>charging the man who's house was broken into and not the people that stole from him
I want off this wild ride
Absolutely horrible story though, poor guy. But he did kill a guy
>>55492682
>>55492751
>flags
>>55492786
Are you so sure there aren't separate claims/charges against the alleged thieves?
>>55492708
/thread
>>55492682
He should just had put up a no trespassing sign and shot them or sent 8 pit-bulls on them.
>>55492641
Wait how the fuck would he get caught?
>>55492808
The guy killed himself.
couldn't he have just denied the poison wine was his?
Premeditated murder
>>55492885
>survivors tell authorities where they got the wine from
>police question him
>he openly admits to it like a retard
>>55492641
What if the thief sold the wine to you and you and your family drank it?
>>55492682
God fucking damn it I hate lawyers
>b.. But that's the law! Muh case law!
Why didn't he just say it wasn't his wine?
>>55492641
I thought Hungary didn't have this sort of system of law where the rights of criminals trump that of the victim?
>>55492641
If he hadn't have talked to the police, he would have been fine.
But he admitted than he had the intent to poison people, and admitted his plan.
Yeah. Not a great idea.
>>55492873
Good point. What if he had 8 pitbulls guarding the wine and they mauled one of the looters to death?
Don't thieves risk their lives when they steal? Shouldn't they be risking their lives when they steal? If they have government protection while stealing, doesn't that make the government an accomplice to the theft?
>>55492908
Then you deserve to die for buying wine from a thief
Well at least the thief died.
>>55492682
Your argument is flawed in that it was not a death SENTENCE.
The boy, probably some nigger ape, made the CHOICE to steal someone's property unaware of it's contents.
The boy killed himself.
Good riddance.
(unless the kid was white)
>>55492903
this, cunt should have just lawyered up
How to solve.
>Did you intentionally poison wine.
>No, I just needed to store some stuff. Not my fault they drank my garage chemicals.
Done.
>>55492708
All lesbians must die.
Under no circumstances should such twisted people be put into authority over normal white human beings.
>>55492641
Do you really want to live in a world where people go around putting anti-freeze into bottles of wine?
>>55492708
No surprises there. Women are a scourge to civilization.
>>55492641
Inb4 Orban pardons him.
>>55492993
His wine, he can do what he likes with it.
>>55492641
Because killing is against the law, and he obviously intended to fatally harm someone, which would only be legal for self defense purposes. I mean if someone punches you it doesn't mean you're entitled to break their neck.
The correct decision would have been to put sleeping drugs in the wine to catch the thieves red handed, or maybe something like a strong laxative then follow the poop trail. At worst he should have used something which could only cause illness and not death. A more clever idea would have been to label the bottles with "poison", have the thieves think it's a dumb trick, and then when they kill themselves he should be able to argue that he wasn't in the wrong.
Was it gypsies?
>>55492993
Sure.
Why is /pol/ full of lawyerfags who think the fact something exists in case law makes it moral?
An unjust law is no law at all.
>>55492993
No, but we live in a world where thieves steal, often with impunity, and this is what people do in response.
>>55492908
you wanna buy some wine, it's cheap now, ask no questions, it's completely legal
>>55493011
See:
>>55493039
The fact something exists in law does not make it ethically defensible. I can tell from your language you work in law in some capacity and have internalized this dogma.
Our law also tells us mass immigration and naturalization is good, after all.
>>55493011
>The correct decision would have been to put sleeping drugs in the wine to catch the thieves red handed
Yeah, because I'm sure they were drinking it right there in the guy's house and not taking it elsewhere to drink. And what the fuck do you think this is, a video game? You just put a sleeping pill in their drink and they go to sleep? That's not how real sleeping pills work, and in any case that would still be poisoning and attempted murder by your logic.
>>55492993
Do you want to live in a world where you cant protect your house and properties? Because thats the same all murricans defend when talking about guns. Do you want people to go around with guns? Pretty sure a gun on a street can kill more people than a bottle of wine in your house
This is america god damn it, if i want to store poison in my wine that's my own business.
>>55493011
It is his property.
He can poison it if he wants.
He might have some lesbians over for dinner.
>>55492912
>b.. But that's the law!
But it literally is. It doesn't get adapted to your feelings. That's the whole point of written law.
>>55492641
Glad to hear this. Bozgor are subhuman trash anyway so nothing of value was lost.
>>55492641
It's against the law because it could otherwise lead to scenarios difficult to prove. If all the thieves had died nobody would be able to know if they had stolen the poisoned bottles or if he had simply given to them with the intention of killing them.
>>55493074
Lmao that's your shitty laws, here in America we use the courts more than any other country.
Our system is highly refined and case law is typically accompanied with a large amount of rationalization and discussion.
Just looks like this guy ran into a problem that happens here, too - you go before a shitty judge.
Depending on how appeals work in Hungary, I think this guy has a good chance
>>55493009
>His wine, he can do what he likes with it.
Obviously not.
>>55492641
Should have used methanol instead.
>>55492641
>sour cherry wine.
Oh fuck I want some
>why is it illegal to store poisonous food in your home, if the only one who could get to it rightfully, is you.
Because nation is run by faggots. Cunt cop kills someone while they're not resisting and not committing a crime, okay.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lisa-mearkle-cop-who-fatally-shot-man-back-cleared-murder-n458226
Shop owner kills someone who's actively committing a crime, not okay.
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/05/us/merchant-is-held-in-burglar-s-death.html
>>55492641
>2015
>not using whine bottles to store extra antifreeze
Where else do they propose you store it? In your garage? Hungary is an assbackwards country indeed
Meh the guy fucked up by not thinking it through. You can argue about how fair/unfair the law is until the cows come home but at the end of the day the laws the law and if you break it and get caught you're going to get done.
If he wanted to hurt them he should have put something in the wine that would fuck their guts up but not kill them, if he wanted them dead he should have put something untraceable in it like riccin. You can get charged for poisoning somebodies dog for fucks sake.
>>55493205
lol yeah so refined that you have 5000 murders a year and barely 30 executions.
Some "deterrent".
>>55492682
yeah i remember the good old days when
stealing = straya
9/10 of these cases only exist because the defendant got stupid and talked to the police. Keep quiet, lawyer up, and if you've hurt someone keep saying you thought your life was in danger.
>>55493074
It's not ethical to kill someone for theft, at least in western countries. But hey once sharia law takes over then you can expect guys like him to be cleared of all charges.
>>55493085
Hey I'm just throwing ideas off the top of my head here. And I said sleeping drugs, not pills. Surely there are some fast acting anesthetics out there. But all of this is beside the point. The bottom line is that he broke the law.
>>55493149
Context matters, and he very clearly intended to poison the thieves. If he wanted to avoid jail he should have sought to resolve the matter through non-lethal means.
>>55493124
det var inte usa ditt efterblivna fan
>>55493325
>It's not ethical to kill someone for theft, at least in western countries
Based on what you lawyer fuck? People like you are the the reason we have so many lawyers per capita.
>But hey once sharia law takes over then you can expect guys like him to be cleared of all charges.
It's totally inconceivable you could have a legal system that hands down death sentences and corporal punishment outside of the sphere of shariah law right?
Fuck "human rights". No such thing exists.
>>55492641
the same reason you are legally required to flea your own home if you get robbed in most states
people actually value the life of a criminal over people's property rights
Property rights are the single most important piece of a capitalist society, and every country that forgets this turns into a shit hole. Just look at south america and russia
>>55493395
Based on the fact that you generally don't see people get the death sentence for theft. If law enforcement won't execute them then what makes you think a citizen has the right to do so? You can campaign against the law all you want but the objective fact is that as of this very moment the guy had broken the currently existing law and therefore sentenced to jail.
>>55492641
>MFW a 'buttery' is a thing
>>55493443
He didn't break any law, though. He didn't poison them. All he did was store the poison in the wine bottles.
The thieves broke into his home and unlawfully took and drank its contents. They poisoned themselves. He may have set them up but that is irrelevant in any sane judicial system that actually takes laws into account.
>>55493443
Do you understand what ethical philosophy is, lawtard? It doesn't equal "what the law says is legal at a given time", because that's constantly changing. The fact you're incapable of defending this on a philosophical level without resorting to "well that's what the law says therefore it's ethical", is telling.
>>55493395
Much angst!
So edge!
You're a faggot trying to sound cool.
>>55492708
Society is fucked
Please bring on the civil wars
This is similar to a case that happened a few years ago in the US, guys house kept getting burglarized, so the home owner pretended to go on vacation and hid in his basement for a couple days until 2 teenagers broke in and he shot them both, waiting 30 minutes for them to die and then called police. Home owner got life in prison some bullshit about premeditated murder
>>55492708
I WAS JUST GOING TO BED...
DFSIJMNDSLFKFDSMF
>>55492808
NO, HE DIDN'T, MOTHERFUCKER.
IF I PUT A BULLET IN MY TABLE, YOU GET INTO MY HOUSE, TAKE THE BULLET, AND SHOOT YOURSELF IN THE HEAD, IT'S NOT A MURDER.
Only bad thing is the robber might have shared and not told his friends it was stolen. That's not right that they would come to harm from this.
As far as the robbers concerned, fair enough.
>>55492751
if some punk kid broke into my house, stole my gun, and playing around with it shot himself would it really be my fault for leaving a firearm out where a kid could get it
So basically I couldn't store e.g. antifreeze in a wine bottle in my own garage just because it could be possible that somebody would steal it and drink it? Should I prepare my other belonging also in a way that when stolen the thief doesn't get hurt?
>>55493496
This is retarded. He intended to kill people. If I put a fucking mine under a public bench, I'm not gonna go to jail for fucking littering when it blows up a family
>>55492682
All he had to do was to put a warning label saying that it's poison.
>>55493496
He was expecting them to drink the wine and therefore poisoned it. How is that not intentionally trying to harm someone? Your argument only works if he'd never been robbed before and was literally coincidentally storing poisoned alcohol for some reason unrelated to trying to punish thieves.
>>55493510
And you're incapable of reading what I wrote. So what if law is constantly changing? It has nothing to do with the fact that the pre-existing law at the time determined that he had broken the rules and therefore had to be punished. Maybe next year it'll be legal to kill people for theft, who knows, but that's irrelevant to this case.
>>55493604
>If I put a fucking mine under a public bench
This is a false analogy and you know it, you dishonest idiot.
See >>55493586
Because that's what it actually amounts to.
>>55492641
This is a violation of natyral rights and an injustice. The thief could just as easily have poisoned himself from unfamiliarity but using something clearly labeled. If the judge wants to care so much about this predator he should have done something about this man getting robbed and then the predator would be alive.
Oh man, that's as keked as keked gets.
>Nuu he was intentionally killing people premeditated murder guhhhh
Pathetic, just pathetic.
>>55492641
This guy did nothing wrong, in my book.
>>55493604
>mine under a public bench
>a public bench
>public
Can you detect any difference between "a public bench" and a private home, or are you retarded?
>>55492641
NEVER TALK TO ANYONE!
Had he kept his mouth shut and be like;
>"No officer, I have no recollection of said wine."
he'd be fine, thats the end of it.
>VID RELATED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfsAH9HmQSA
You're starving, malnourished, ask a cop for help
>IDGAF
Oh! Wine is being poisoned! Lets get them!
Notice how they even show this in the episode, the cop doesn't react until he gets to the wine!
Fucking France, Fucking Britain. Fucking Germany.
>You are alive to watch the corpse called 'Europe' erode into nothing.
>>55493656
So is barbed wire fencing illegal?
The thief abandoned all expectation of safety and fair dealing when he became a thief. He had a way to avoid being poisoned: he could have respected the property of others.
>>55493656
>How is that not intentionally trying to harm someone?
He did not make them drink it. The only thing he can get charged for is conspiring to murder them, and even that can be dismissible if the antifreeze bottle somehow broke.
In any case, it's unethical to charge someone for something that they MIGHT do or how poison MIGHT be used by someone who STOLE it from his own home. He may have poisoned the wine, but he did not commit murder. Again, the thief did that.
>>55493517
>Human rights don't exist
>edgy
They literally don't.
>"I don't believe in a God"
>"But there's some mystical force that imbues humans with 'inalienable human rights'"
Lawtards, everyone!
>>55493656
But that's irrelevant, nobody is disputing that it is "against the law". The dispute is about how ethical the law itself is.
>>55493677
>>55493760
Oh, I'm sorry, I meant a private bench.
Yeah, if I put a mine under a private bench...
oh wait, you'd fucking defend that
how about if you knew a recurring thief had a nut allergy, and you put nut paste in some food with labelling on it that claimed to have no trace of nuts?
>>55492641
Dude should have put in laxatives in high doses into the wine instead.
Or a slow working poison.
what if the thieves sold the wine instead of drinking it? what if one of them gave it to a father of 3 as a birthday present? this fag deserves some jail time.
>>55493816
What is the lethal dose for laxatives?
And technically a lot of iron can kill you.
>>55492641
>>55493752
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfsAH9HmQSA
>Anti-freeze in the win
>>55492682
This is why we need laws that favor whites in our white countries. If the thief was a nigger who died, then who gives a fuck and good riddance and his friends he shared with can blame him in hell. If the thief who died was white than at worst criminal negligence.
>>55493783
Barbed wiring is obvious and easy to see.
>>55493784
>when I lay mouse traps, i don't kill mice
>they kill themselves
>>55493830
Yeah that's the point I brought up too. If the other drinkers were unaware it was stolen then it's a problem. Don't know how to handle this honestly.
most places have laws against setting lethal man-traps. seriously, man. there was fucking intent there.
>>55493808
same case, you intentionally put the nuts there knowing it would most probably kill someone.
>>55493830
It doesnt matter what the thieves did with it you faggot.
>>55493853
Mouse traps work because they have bait, are you somehow implying that he put up his house as bait? Yeah I'm sure he put up signs all over.
>"Free wine, right this way!"
>"Come to my house and take my stuff, it's the new jam!"
>>55493853
>>they kill themselves
Technically, they do. See >>55493586
>>55493325
The thieves should not have stolen his property.
He outwitted them.
They committed suicide.
>They burn in hell as we speak.
>pic related
>Its Mr.Noose
>he loves raping lesbian throats with his flaccid rope
this is a true story
>2004 Hungary
>old man has a cucumber plantation
>he puts a fence around it
>inside his own property
>so there is the big fence, separating the plot and the street, and there is a small inner fence around the plantation
>into that inner fence, he connects electricity
>big ass signs says that the fence is electric
>thief climbs over the outer fence
>tries to steal the vegetables
>gets killed by the high voltage
The old man was sentenced for like 8 years, despite he was like 80 years old. He get out since.
Welcome to Hungary. We might have built a fence, but everything else is fucking bizarro here.
What happens in usa? Like, if you put traps around your own plot, and somebody, illegally sneaks in, and dies, what happens?
>>55493830
Wait, your argument is that a property owner is responsible for the actions of a thief? What if a thief gets into an unforeseen argument and uses a blunt object to kill people? This is incoherent nonsense. The property owner can only be responsible for his property while in control of it. If the state were to confiscate it, then mishandle it, would that be the property owner's fault?
You are responsible for your actions.
You cannot be responsible for the actions of others.
>>55493894
proofs?
i could just say i like nuts, and didn't realise i had bought a nut-free item by mistake, so added nut content for my personal likeness of nuts
>>55493913
No, I'm saying it's still murder, or at best homicide by incompetence (it's entirely possible he didn't think the poison would kill)
>>55493916
People know how guns work. Mice don't know how mouse traps work. People don't tend to know if something is poisoned until they've tasted it.
>>55493550
There's an audio clip of this on youtube somewhere. He recorded himself taunting them and then killing them. It's pretty spooky tbqh.
Haha! Now it cannot be stolen!
>>55493945
Stand your ground / Defend your castle laws protect you.
>>55493783
Barbed wire can't kill you unless you try really hard to kill yourself with it, but that's just chalked up to suicide rather than murder/manslaughter. Meanwhile the guy explicitly aimed to inflict deadly harm to the thieves, who weren't looking to kill themselves. They broke the law, but so did he.
>>55493784
He anticipated them drinking it though and therefore poisoned it. It's like you're saying you can't be charged for running over a kid because you didn't force the kid to run out into the street. Absolutely ridiculous.
>>55493796
Well then there's no point in arguing with me about it because I'm just here to state the objective reason why he went to jail.
>>55493972
Foolproof!
>>55493276
>If he wanted to hurt them he should have put something in the wine that would fuck their guts up but not kill them
That's exactly what he did though, since only one of the people drinking it died
Lord knows how someone could drink literal antifreeze and somehow think they should keep drinking it until they get poisoned and die, that shit is just revolting to even breath near
>>55493969
>People don't tend to know if something is poisoned until they've tasted it.
Maybe they shouldn't taste wine that doesn't belong to them. If he forced the wine down their throats, that'd be one thing, but they did it all on their own accord.
>>55493996
>Well then there's no point in arguing with me about it because I'm just here to state the objective reason why he went to jail.
So do you think he did the right thing or not?
>stick poison labels on it
>thieves assume its a bluff
>die
lel in freedom
>>55493946
he was aware that he was gonna get robbed again. Also like other anons said context matters. You just cant poison FOOD AND DRINKS, that itself is almost a terrorist act.
What's next? radiocative money in banks?
what if the thief can't read?
>>55493996
>Well then there's no point in arguing with me about it because I'm just here to state the objective reason why he went to jail.
Thanks for being an objective relayer of information about how mens rea works man, but that's obviously not the only reason you're here. You very clearly believe in this law, yet you're unwilling to defend it on an ethical philosophical level.
That is telling.
>>55493946
Don't question their retarded logic, for all they care, rapist are people too until they rape their daugthers.
>>55494040
Why not? Should be fine as long as I'm not serving it to other people.
If someone steals it and eats it without my consent, how is it my fault?
You forfeit your rights when committing crimes. Sadly that is not legally true, but it should be.
If you steal something, then you forfeit your rights to safety during the theft and with the items precured from the theft
>>55493996
>It's like you're saying you can't be charged for running over a kid because you didn't force the kid to run out into the street.
It's absolutely ridiculous you're using a false analogy here. He didn't tie them down and force the wine down their throat, nor did they innocently go into public domain. Everything you're saying is wrong.
He put poison in his wine. That's not illegal. They broke into his house and drank the wine. And you're trying to tell me that HE should be the one punished, because of an act THEY committed? No. Just no.
>>55493972
I always open my vodka take out the doser (plastick shit stoping the holy water from flowing)
And then i stick "computer cleaning liquid " or "pestacide " note on it
there have been plenty of cases where people got tired of their neighbors dog shitting in their garden so they put out some poisoned dog food in their own garden, ended up killing the dog and were sentenced. when theres intent AND the pre-occuring events have happened multiple times (so the person can expect it to happen again) its certainly unlawful. lets say the man had never been robbed before and for some reason he decided to store 'poisoned' wine in his house you cant really assume intent.
>>55494023
Both the robbers (I assume nobody is debating this as i have yet to see a Swedish flag) and the man trying to poison them were in the wrong. The only reason the man put the poisoned wine there was to harm robbers (yes, it's possible if not quite likely that he didn't intend to kill them). You shouldn't do that, because if people do rob you (which is a possibility) they could quite easily die.
>i warned you about social democracy
>i told you, dog
>>55494112
This should be added to every book of law, worldwide.
>>55494165
It's like backing out of your drive onto the road without checking for pedestrians. Sure the kid shouldn't have been in your driveway...
>>55494115
>He put poison in his wine. That's not illegal.
What's the reason he put poison in his wine? And what happened next? That's why he got sent to jail.
>>55494131
Littering your garden with poisoned dog food is very different compared to locking it up behind closed doors and then having dog-burglars come in and steal it.
>>55494035
Personally I think repeat offenders like these deserved it, but the law is the law, and making exceptions could very well let off people in the future who actually do deserve to go to jail by creating such a precedent.
>>55494051
Killing is illegal unless in self defense or to protect lives (and even then context matters). This man killed without fulfilling this condition. End of story.
>>55494115
He anticipated they would steal and drink the wine and therefore poisoned it with the intention to harm them you dunce. It was no coincidence, it was deliberate, which is obviously why he was sentenced to jail.
>>55494112
I agree, with limits. If someone steals your phone you should be able to assault them to a reasonable extent and restrain them but you shouldn't be allowed to strangle them to death.
>>55492641
His intention was that he knew people would break into his house again? If he knew, and the cops knew, and no one did anything about it.. imo the cops should be on trial for neglecting their duty.
Typical clever white man being oppressed by the crypto jew.
The man is an idiot because he cannot know where will the stolen wine end up. It could very well be drinked by innocent people who didnt know it was stolen. I am fine with a thief getting revenge, but putting poison into unsuspecting containers of food or drink endangers not only the thief, but also the public at large.
>>55494165
>The only reason the man put the poisoned wine there was to harm robbers
The intent is irrelevant. Someone could post a twitter comment advocating his wish to see the death of the president. Would you have them thrown into prison because a terrorist saw the twitter comment and was motivated to actually carry the action out?
You can't hold him accountable without the legal grounds. He didn't actually do anything illegal, even if his intentions had illegal implications.
>>55494225
That analogy only works if it's your own private road which is fenced off from outsiders you are driving out on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_T._Francis#Anarcho-tyranny
>What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny – the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through "sensitivity training" and multiculturalist curricula, "hate crime" laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word, anarcho-tyranny.
>Francis argues that this situation extends across the U.S. and Europe. While the government functions normally, violent crime remains a constant, creating a climate of fear (anarchy). He says that "laws that are supposed to protect ordinary citizens against ordinary criminals" routinely go unenforced, even though the state is "perfectly capable" of doing so. While this problem rages on, government elites concentrate their interests on law-abiding citizens.
>The laws that are enforced are either those that extend or entrench the power of the state and its allies and internal elites ... or else they are the laws that directly punish those recalcitrant and "pathological" elements in society who insist on behaving according to traditional norms
>>55494209
In England, if you steal from a bakery and get sick, you can sue the baker for giving you food poisoning.
>>55494255
Jesus you are the most autistic lawtard I've ever met.
What part of "nobody is doubting the illegality of the act" do you not understand?
>>55494112
>>55494209
unfortunately thats not the case. its pretty bad in germany, too. just yesterday i read a news article about a man who surprised a burglar, punched him in his face breaking his jaw and then kept him there to wait for police. prosecution is now investigating against both, the burglar for burglary and the tenant for aggrevated assault. even more ridiculous: the burglar has around 200 (!!!) criminal charges and was still free.
>>55494225
>It's like backing out of your drive onto the road without checking for pedestrians
That's a false analogy. He didn't actually do anything illegal, they did it to themselves. The kid would have to go into his car, put a cinderblock on the gas pedal, and then stand in front of it and then get run over. You're essentially advocating that in a scenario like this, the vehicle owner should be jailed for leaving his keys int he ignition because he knew that the kid would do such a thing.
It's absolutely bogus, and it's misleading, and I denounce you from this debate for using such a dishonest tactic.
>>55492993
dont think i would break in for purpose of stealing goods and if i did and would do something that stupid then i would deserve to die
no you do not understand, i would be total retard for putting anything inside of me that i did not know anything about
In all honesty, in Finland the grocery stores keep their trash cans behind locked doors, so that dumpster divers couldn't sue the store if they get food poisoning from expired foods.
>>55494279
Wanting someone dead isn't the same as intending to bring about their death, nor is being causally responsible.
Tweeting him knowing that he would do it would be assassination.
If the guy had just been casually storing poisoned wine, as I'm sure so many people do, and robbers happened to drink it, then I'd say "shame but an accident"
>retards defending thieves
Fucking degenerates. Every single one of you.
The actual problem here is that Hungary thinks it's a crime to kill thieves. In most southern states of the US, they call you a hero for killing thieves.
Specifically, his intent was to kill someone committing a felony. He wasn't intending to kill an "innocent" person. And as such, his intentions do not merit punishment.
Even if the thieves sold/distributed the wine, it would then have been their fault for any harm that came from it. Again, the farmer's intent was to harm the felons, not innocents.
>>55492641
Well it could be justified if he had a sign that said the whine is poisoned. Otherwise he just wanted the whine looters to die without knowing. If he had a sign it was poisoned and they still drank it, they would have posioned themself
>>55494234
the law doesnt make a difference just because a thing isnt as easy to access.
>>55493830
He damaged his own goods to disincentivize thieves from stealing it
They stole it anyway because apparently they can't tell the difference between wine and antifreeze
If I spilled wine on my bed sheets so no one would want to take them anyway, but someone took it anyway and put it on their bed just to make a mess and ruin their mattress would I have to buy them a new mattress
If someone steals my (thing) and does (action) with it how is it in anyway my fault
>>55493972
Well at that point if someone drinks it and dies you're absolved of responsibility.
The guy in this case's mistake was he admitted to having intent to poison the thieves. Even in america the law is pretty clear that deliberate killing is only lawful when the defender is in danger.
If he'd just waited at home and shot them all he would have gotten away with it no problems because he could just claim they rushed him.
>>55493830
Then you charge the thieves with manslaughter, dipshit. Not the actual wine owner.
>europe
fucking cukcs. deserve it for being anti-gun and leftists shits
>>55494434
>Tweeting him knowing that he would do it would be assassination.
Let's agree to disagree, then. You have a fucked up vision of justice. In my world only the terrorist would be jailed and everyone else has free speech.
>>55494258
I almost disagree. If a man steals your phone and you wrestle with him to get it back, and he just happens to be Eric Garner tier and dies, he forfeited his right to life. Also someone who steals your phone forfeits their right to liberty, so you should be able to use appropriate force to detain them.
Sure you can't murder a man in revenge, but the safety of the stolen product is not guaranteed, and may even be booby trapped for deterrence, and action may be taken to detain them, and resisting that detainment should be allowed escalation of force until the authorities show up.
>>55494286
That's food other people will be eating too
>>55494376
That's ridiculous. Setting a trap doesn't make you less responsible.
Ok, so lets say I do the same thing as Good Guy here, except instead of trying to kill the robbers I'm trying to kill my spouse. It's my poisoned wine, why the fuck did she touch it? That's like getting in my car and driving it into a brick wall!
>>55494230
By that logic, if I pissed (or put bleach) in a beer bottle, left it in my car (say, trunk), and some idiot broke into said car and drank the damn thing, I would be liable?
The problem here is intent, but even so the judge would be fine in letting the man go.
>>55492867
Seriously... why is this thread still up?
>>55494516
If I get someone else to commit a crime, I am commiting a crime.
>>55494530
Wife taking the wine isn't illegal.
Thieves taking the wine is. I thought you would be more understanding given your inclination towards Sharia law.
>>55494530
>except instead of trying to kill the robbers I'm trying to kill my spouse
It's still a false analogy, because in the eyes of the law the private property is no longer private. Now you're amounting to the landmine in public domain argument.
And it's still wrong.
>>55492944
ding ding ding
>>55494553
You're missing the point. This isn't about liability for actions, it's about liability for privilege points.
As a non-white non-Christian alien male, they have less privilege points than the white Christian native male, therefore the native is guilty while the non-native gets a free ride.
>not putting a toxicity sticker on the barrel
>thieves won't believe it
>same results
>save from SJW lawyer
>>55493830
>what if the thieves sold the wine instead of drinking it?
duh, the thieves would be guilty of selling anti-freeze disguised as wine. On top of theft they'd be guilty of murder. Not the home owner's fault he was robbed of his property.
>>55492641
It's not illegal to store poisons in your home. It is however illegal to use that poison to intentionally cause harm to another. The fact that the harm in this case is death sort of stands taller than the break and enter too don't you think?
>>55494617
>>55494631
What if I put a label on it saying "mine dont touch"
What if we're just cohabiting
I hope the next logical step of this feminist bullshit policy is that rapists can sue their victims if they get an STD.
would you faggots stop making stupid analogies and just accept this for what it is.
A thief can steal something off your property, harm himself with it and you are somehow at fault for this?
insanity
>>55494574
>if someone broke into my house, stole my gun, and killed someone else with it (intentionally or unintentionally), I committed the murder
What are you trying to argue, exactly?
>>55492751
>Intent is supported by the fact he typically did not store poisoned items
I'm would assume any competent lawyer would have politely but firmly told him to shut the fuck up before admitting to this.
>>55494527
That's basically what I said. While I do think the force used on Garner may have been excessive, the officer's intent was probably not to kill the bastard. All i'm saying is that you can rough the fucker up a bit (maybe more than bit if you fancy it) since he has voided his right to normal treatment by commiting a crime, but if you actively try to kill him for stealing a phone that is excessive. If they happen to die from a heart attack or stroke thats a different situation and you shouldn't be responsible.
>>55494574
He didn't make them commit the crime of suicide or of even theft. He's innocent on all accounts. You have no legal ground to convict him as he broke no law. The thieves condemned themselves by breaking into his house and stealing and drinking his wine. It doesn't matter what he put into it because he never went outside of his legal domain.
If he left it outside like at the park or something where the thieves were walking, that'd be a different story. But he didn't.
what faggot PC OP failed to mention is, the thieves were fucking gipsies.
>>55493945
yep, gipsies too.
fucking street shitting demonic indian subhuman diaspora
>>55494553
you could be liable, if you have parked your car at the same place where someone has broken into it several times before.
>>55492641
Really?! You funky ass, Nappy headed, hot garbage breath niggers are saying that if the thief stole a gun and shot himself, the said owner would be at fault?
Holy shit, there are some useless cunts here.
>>55494668
The thieves didn't steal poison, they stole antifreeze stored in a wine bottle. Turns out anti-freeze is poisonous to humans when ingested
>>55494694
That has literally nothing to do with what I said.
Here's a better version:
If someone broke into my house, and I gave them a gun, and told them to kill someone with it, with the intent that they do so, I am guilty of attempted murder
>>55494688
>>55492682
we already know that
aussies = thieving ex-convicts
>>55494734
This was directed at someone else making a different point, my position to OP is that it's the same as leaving out poisoned wine for your wife with a label saying don't touch
>>55493550
That is actual first degree because he planned it all out and even recorded it. If he just pretended to wake up and had shot the intruders, he would have gotten a lot lighter sentencing, possibly even gotten away with it.
He was insane though, so it's probably good that he got life.
>>55494748
if the gun wasnt stored properly, then possibly, yes
>>55494670
Then she is stupid to touch it. What are you dumb?
>>55494268
Then the thief should be the one charged with the deaths of others
>>55494755
>If someone broke into my house, and I gave them a gun, and told them to kill someone with it, with the intent that they do so, I am guilty of attempted murder
Are you forgetting that there's a thing called "free will" and you can't be held responsible for other peoples actions? You might be responsible for conspiracy to committ a crime but not the crime itself.
>>55494780
Go bin your knife, bong, while sipping on your tea with cookie crumbles
>>55494755
>I gave
Did he give them the poison? No. He got robbed of his poison. Now stfu.
>>55494824
/Thread
this Sven here is right. Based Swede
man let off
>future burglars think twice before B&E and stealing
man given harsh sentence
>burglars can rest easy knowing that others will not employ such dirty tricks in the future
>now they can go back to benignly looting in peace
I'm glad even countries such as Hungary are finally catching up with our high social standards in the 21st century.
You have NO right to take measures that might lead another individual to experience harm NO MATTER WHAT EVER. So there! :^)
>Bin Laden didn't commit 9/11
>Bin Laden just told people to fly planes into buildings and helped acquire bombs and guns
>>55493011
>if someone punches you
> you are, in fact, entitled to break their neck
Physical assault and all rules are off. Someone punching you is attempting to kill or otherwise grievously injure you. You do whatever it takes to ensure your own security and safety. If their neck gets broken in the process, too fucking bad.
>>55494853
This is for someone else making a different point, read what I'm replying to before you reply
>>55494875
>a woman slapped me
>i raped her
>this is acceptable in america
>>55494794
what about a butter knife? Say the cunt stole it and killed someone or himself. how the hell is the owner responsible for that shit?
>>55494780
Hey bong. What law is it again that makes it illegal to touch something labelled do not touch.
>>55494363
>prosecution is now investigating against both
Yes, our Notwehr status are unbelievably strict, this is sadly not uncommon at all, most people end up with an utterly undeserved probation sentence for rightfully defending themselves.
>the burglar has around 200 (!!!) criminal charges and was still free
This is a much, much bigger problem. It's crazy how many people like that are still not incarcerated, especially for violent crimes and sexual delicts, also sentencing perpetrators in their mid-twenties under juvenile justice laws (which should end at eighteen years of age, normally), not to mention that when these people are sentenced it's way to lenient in terms of years.
Anecdotal: I have an aquaintance who is here illegally for about fifteen years now, dealing drugs to finance himself. The police arrested him multiple times, raided his house three times and found product one time, he got sent to some kind of jail that's only for illegals, there he got his fucking Duldung instead of getting deported. As much as i like him it's a fucking disgrace that he is still free in this country.
>>55494780
>it's probably good that he got life
>for defending his property
You have a fucked up vision of justice. It's like you're completely forgetting that the thieves broke into his house.
>>55492641
Wait,putting rat bait in your cellar is illegal now?
>>55493643
why would you fucking need to label your own stuff, especially if you live alone?
The tendrils of Health and Safety can't reach behind your house door.
>>55494875
You try telling the judge that.
>>55493115
Nice slippery slope you've got there anon.
You europeans seem woefully supportive of common criminals and their right to not suffer for their crimes.
>thieves break into home
>steal wine tainted with antifreeze
>drink wine tainted with antifreeze
>be injured
OH NO, THOSE POOR THIEVES, THE FARMERS A MONSTER
But let's compare:
>thieves break into home
>steal antifreeze
>drink antifreeze
>be injured
What then, bleeding hearts? Is the farmer still on the hook for these worthless shits?
No, he's not. Because the thieves are 100% responsible for any outcome associated with stolen goods. It doesn't matter if the goods are poisoned, rigged with explosives, or radioactive. By stealing, they've accepted full responsibility for all consequences. No harm would have come to anyone had they chosen to not break the law.
>>55494863
>America didn't commit 9/11
>they just trained Al Qaeda
>>55494863
>CIA didn't slaughter shitskins in <insert country>
>They just told people to organize coups and gifted them money, weapons and special ops training.
>>55494936
THIS
H
I
S
>>55494755
>and told them to kill someone with it
Your argument breaks down and becomes a false analogy right here. Nowhere did the man advocate the thieves to drink his wine or to break into his house. A better analogy would be that they STOLE the gun from you and then they shot. You're advocating that you should be jailed for holding the gun for them to see it and have the idea of shooting someone with it.
>>55493798
Is the bench on your property? Is no one supposed to be on your property?
Then yes, absolutely, it should be allowed.
>>55494891
The same law that stops robbers from taking shit that isn't even labelled do not touch, i.e. the fact that it's mine
>>55494893
I didn't say he deserved life, I said he was in the wrong. The government does, and has to, decide where to draw the line between the value of your property to you and the value of a life
>>55494892
we have serious trouble deporting criminals that are here illegally, because their home country doesnt want to take them back and they are allowed to refuse.
In fairness he had no idea the thief would drink it, they might have given it to some kids, who knows. It's reasonably dangerous.
>>55494892
One of the things that makes me despise lawtards and the judiciary most of all is the scale of recidivism.
There's just no accountability. They can let some fuck out on an early release scheme who goes on to rape and kill, and none of the fuckers involved in actually letting him out receive any sort of punitive action.
>>55493156
>it doesn't get adapted to your feelings
Not unless you're a woman, black or 'refugee'. Didn't you know that the law only applies to the white devils? :^)
>>55494887
>>55494926
He's partially right. If you are in fear of your life you can pretty much do anything to protect yourself.
Hence, in a self-defence situation, ALWAYS mag-dump and kill the other guy unless he is already running away.
>>55494040
>You just cant poison FOOD AND DRINKS
So rat poison is illegal in Colombia?
You don't use cheeses in your rat/mouse traps?
>>55494936
It's because the legal system here is run by naive idiots who think that deep inside all criminals are nice people and the fact they raped and murdered someone is because they had a bad childhood and they can be fixed with some tender loving government care.
>>55494936
The farmer in the second scenario didn't intentionally try to trick the thieves into killing themselves without them knowing, so no, there's no issue there.
>>55494926
Reasonable force laws protect you. It's so if someone breaks into your home in complete blackness, you can attack them with a weapon because you can't tell with certainty that they didn't have a weapon.
If you can justify the amount of force used, you're not guilty of manslaughter.
>>55494941
>>55494961
>implying I don't think america is responsible
>>55494966
For the third time, this was for someone else making a different point. Did the man in the OP use a gun? No he did not. Did the robbers shoot themselves? No they did not. omg false analogy
>>55494971
Ok Estonia
Would'ev labeled it posion do not touch
idiots would still have taken it because they can't read.
>break into your house
>trip and fall because you're a fucking slob
>sue you for willfully putting obstacles in my way with the intent of causing me harm
>>55493830
It's a fair point. But let's imagine that they did sell it and the buyer died from it, then the thieves should be getting a sentence for it, not the home owner
Can you not smell anti-freeze?
I drink a lot of wine and wouldn't anyone with a fucking nose be able to immediately tell that it isn't wine? Or is it tasteless?
Like the judges appearance
>>55495041
Not too far from the truth.
>>55495013
top kek
>>55495024
>Did the robbers shoot themselves? No they did not.
They might as well have. Because instead of a bullet, they ate poison. Same difference. Deny it all you want, you can't logically disprove the fact that the man is lawfully innocent, even if his intentions should be frowned upon.
>admitted he added about 2 liters (2 quarts) of anti-freeze to the barrel in October 2013 after thieves repeatedly stole from it, but says he didn't intend to kill anyone and has appealed the court's ruling.
why would he admit it? presumably they found out at the hospital or something, then the thieves went to the police? something seems off here
>>55494040
No no, clearly the answer is to spend the rest of our lives being victimized. What you really meant to say was that this guy should have drunk his own wine.
>>55495013
You can still go to jail if you kill someone you got into a petty bar fight with. For you to be cleared of murder/manslaughter you would need to prove that you absolutely needed deadly force to protect yourself, or at least you were in a mental state whereby you thought you needed deadly force.
>>55495022
I'm not arguing that, but getting punched once is not justification to go ham and kill someone. Getting beaten by weapons and then killing your aggressor in one desperate blow? Likely justifiable, and fits according to what I said earlier about self defense/protecting lives.
>>55495108
Did the robbers break in, find the anti freeze in an anti-freeze bottle, and drink it? No they fucking didn't
If you can't tell the difference between taking a gun and shooting yourself, and drinking from a barrel of wine that someone poisoned, we're done
>>55495100
It's true, go visit /k/ some nights and they'll gladly give you actual cases.
Never, EVER shoot (or brandish) with the intent to warn or wound.
>>55495175
>Did the robbers break in, find the anti freeze in an anti-freeze bottle, and drink it? No they fucking didn't
YES THEY FUCKING DID. THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT HAPPENED
>>55495108
>you can't logically disprove the fact that the man is lawfully innocent
>LAWFULLY
>INNOCENT
BRAVO BURGERBRO
>>55494022
Dude anti-freeze has been used as a murder weapon because you could hide the flavor in lime Gatoraide.
Shit cats and dogs die drinking it every year too
>>55495195
They literally drank poisoned alcohol from a wine barrel you moron.
I know that feel.
Few months back my house got broken into and I broke several of the intruders bones after I attacked him, then threw him out of my house and down the stairs. I was originally charged with assault and intent to kill. But somehow it magically turned into, pay the guy $500.
I'm still pissed off I had to pay the cunt. I would move to America, where I'm allowed to defend my home if it gets broken into at fucking night, but I now have a fucking criminal record which makes it almost impossible to migrate.
>tfw no guns allowed and no defending your home allowed
I hate this country.
>>55495108
by what law ?
>>55495236
>They literally drank poisoned alcohol from a wine barrel
You mean they literally drank antifreeze flavored with plenty of wine
>>55495021
>intentionally try to trick the thieves into killing themselves without them knowing
Are you suggesting the farmer lured the thieves into his house?
Are you suggesting the farmer manipulated their upbringing to give them lax opinions on personal property?
Are you suggesting the farmer put a sign up in front of his property saying "IN CASE YOU WANT FREE WINE, BREAK GLASS?"
No, the farmer didn't "trick" anyone. They broke into his house and took his possessions. At that point, it's 100% on them.
By your twisted logic, if the farmer owned a gun and put blanks into it, and the thieves stole the gun, then later went on to defend themselves in a shootout the farmer would be responsible for the thieves dying because of the blanks.
Nothing that occurs to the thieves by a result of stolen goods is the farmer's responsibility, regardless of what the goods were. The act of theft transfers responsibility completely.
If only he had put a label on the wine bottles saying POISON he'd be off scot free and the thieves would still would have gotten themselves killed. The thieves would obviously have thought it's just petty attempt at preventing the wine from being stolen and courts couldn't do anything against the guy since it's clearly labeled poison.
>>55495236
Who cares what container they drank it from? The point is they killed themselves and that they did so in a way that absolves the owner of legal liabilities. His intentions were bad, yes. But he didn't murder them, nor did he do anything illegal.
>>55495013
Naw you can shoot in the back too. But you have yo get creative.
Say shit like he was running to his friends, who had guns. Gotta shoot into the bushes and shit.
Anyway, idiots pretending breaking and entering isnt carried with murderous intent should be shot. Kill the judge. Kill the people who support the judge.
Kill anyone who supports criminals. All of them, and this wont be a problem.
>>55495244
I don't think that's as bad, poisoning is quite different because (depending on the poison) it doesn't defend you at all, it just kills them after the crime
I believe the guy in the OP when he says he just "wanted to teach them a lesson", desu he should've been told "that's fucking retarded, don't do it again" and been let go (or just a small fine)
>>55495190
>Hence, in a self-defence situation, ALWAYS mag-dump and kill the other guy.
/k/ is fucking retarded then.
>>55495195
there's a difference m8. please see it. a better comparison is putting a loaded pez dispenser on the table, except instead of dispensing pez, it shoots you in the face.
the question of whether or not the owner should be liable for these things is separate.
>>55495235
>Shit cats and dogs die drinking it every year too
So we can confirm the thieves were roughly as smart as cats or dogs
I kind of assumed that before but glad we could pin that down
Also even if you manage to hide the intoxicating smell and taste somehow you're not going to hide the sickness in your stomach it makes. I couldn't imagine how someone could possibly drink the stuff and not know something's wrong unless the thief was like 14 and had never had alcohol in his life before and wanted to look cool or something
In any case there's no way he could have known that anyone would have killed themselves with his tainted wine, at worst they should have gotten sick
>>55495288
kek that's pretty good. would it hold up? I don't see why not
I do not see any problem with this.
He made poison and left it in his own house.
People broke in and stole it before drinking it.
Even if he did it to try and kill them it is not his fault.
>>55495125
Even the dumbest fucker can figure out that there is some denatured substance in the wine. It is actually pretty hard work to get rid of the taste. There needs to be an intent of self harm to continue drinking that once it has been figured out. The amount consumed before noticing the taste is so small, that there are no fatal consequences. This is how it is supposed to work in the first place.
>>55495283
He expected them to return, which is why he poisoned the alcohol he expected them to consume on their return. He acted directly to inflict deadly harm on them. This isn't rocket science.
>>55495338
It was in a wine barrel so it's probably a lot harder to tell,
The guy claims he just wanted to teach them a lesson. His charges are for manslaughter, not murder.
>>55495305
It's the same autism you see on reddit where everyone always scream shoot to kill. They argue that any time anyone ever holds a firearm in their hands they should always kill the other person regardless of circumstances. It's worse to point a firearm at someone and not fire than it is to shoot an unarmed person according to reddit.
>>55494926
You might look up US law and case law.
If someone is assaulting me ... and, the example used here was "punching," so we're not talking about a child slapping at you ... and you punch back to defend yourself, the other guy's neck gets broken, case closed. You walk.
Just a couple years back some crackhead in his 20s tried to rob several elderly people on a tour bus. He was using a gun, by the way, as his primary lethal threat.
One of the "elderly" people he tried to rob was a 68 year old dude. An ex-Marine.
> Pro-tip: there is no such thing as an "ex"-Marine.
The Marine grabbed the fucker by his head and snapped his neck.
The police didn't even charge him. There was nothing to charge him with.
>>55495305
>/k/ is fucking retarded then.
For what? Shooting to kill?
There's no training you'll get anywhere outside of a clown college that will teach you how to "shoot to wound." I mean, there's no such thing, you fire lethal weapons with the intent of lethality. If lethality isn't your intent, there's less than lethal (LTL) weapons available.
>>55495391
The thieves got what they had coming. Had it been my home I would have shot them on the spot.
>stealing a revolver and playing russian roulette with it
>die
>owner of revolver gets arrested
pls just nuke us US and Russia
>>55495412
>>55495420
WE MUST KILL ANYTHING THAT TOUCHES ME
REEEEEEEE
>>55492641
>5th year law here
I can't believe that this thread has lasted so long, if you can't clearly see that this is a clear case of murder then you're quite the retard.
>>55492708
Because she bases her judging on feelings, while men are just and logical. Women should not be allowed to be judges.
>>55495391
By your logic, he should be jailed for shooting them when they break into his house because he knew they would come back.
What kind of fucked up justice system do you have that you defend the thieves and convict the homeowner? This isn't rocket science.
>>55495466
Manslaughter, not murder. I don't think the guy wanted to kill them, Still bad, but incompetence and not intent.
>>55495398
He shouldn't have even been charged with that
He did something to stop them from continuously stealing his shit, they didn't stop, and as a result killed themselves
If he put up an electric or barbed wire fence or if he just stayed home and shot at anyone who broke in it'd be fine, why is mixing in bad shit with your good shit to throw robbers off any different
Maybe he just wanted to give the wine some flavor.
>>55495404
Brandishing (i.e. pointing) a firearm, or even waving it in the air at someone, is a crime.
You better have a good reason for drawing a weapon, and you best be shooting with the intent to kill the other guy if you fire, because IT IS A CRIME TO FIRE YOUR WEAPON AS A WARNING.
Also, dead men tell no tales, and you best believe the dindu would spin tales, and his dindu family would've someone been there that night to witness it all.
>>55492641
Did he contact the police before poisoning the thieves?
Did he warn the thieves that something will happen if they keep it up?
If so, the man is a hero and the judge is the villain.
>>55495295
>But he didn't murder them
But he did you moron. How is poisoning something you expect your target to consume not murder?
>put rat poison in someone's meal in a restaurant
>they die
>but they weren't forced to eat the meal so there's no crime here
-literally you
>>55495412
>If someone is assaulting me ... and, the example used here was "punching," so we're not talking about a child slapping at you ... and you punch back to defend yourself, the other guy's neck gets broken, case closed. You walk.
Actually there's a decent chance you'd get charged for manslaughter.
Also the old guy was let off because it could reasonably be argued that he had to kill or be killed. If someone is genuinely threatening your life then you are allowed to defend yourself with as much force as necessary, including deadly force. Meanwhile if he snapped the neck of an unarmed hungry skeleton then it'd likely be a different story.
>>55495433
Not arguing that, but rules are rules. You kill for any reason besides protecting your own life or the life of others and you go to jail.
>>55495391
>He expected them to return
Changes literally nothing.
Again let's change a few details
>Farmer owns guns
>Thieves steal his guns
>expects them to return
>farmer loads blanks into his remaining guns
>thieves steal remaining guns and get into gunfights
>thieves get wounded or die
All he's done is provide a method of suicide for these shitters. It's 100% their responsibility.
If he had a carpark instead of buttery and he sabotaged the brakelines on the cars he knew would be stolen, it's still not his fault what occurs. Once the thieves steal, it's all on them.
>>55495522
Actually, no, brandishing is not illegal in my state.
>>55495522
Given the circumstances was being in your own home it shouldn't be a crime to handle your own firearm in your own house where the other person has no business being. It's not a public place.
>>55495487
>By your logic, he should be jailed for shooting them when they break into his house because he knew they would come back.
and this is exactly what would happen in almost all of europe
>>55495546
Must feel good to live in a free state.
>>55495502
The only purpose it serves is harming them.
>>55495535
>But he did you moron. How is poisoning something you expect your target to consume not murder?
FALSE ANALOGY
>the rat argument
See: >>55495283
>I don't understand logic
>only my feelings matter
literally you
>>55495244
funny i was hoping to migrate to Australia to get the fuck out of the us but i have a criminal record which probably would make migrating there a bitch. In the US, you try defending yourself you are going to get in some deep shit. Zimmerman was fucked over with numerous fees and is debt because of the case with the black kid. Courts will go out of their way to get money from you.
>Person has a piece of shit car
>Thief steals it from within their driveway
>Crashes it and kills people
>Car owner is held accountable for the actions of the thief
Yes the ruling is as retarded as above comparison. I'm glad that fucker is dead. No bullshit about him not deserving death. His death is purely natural selection for purposefully ingesting a stolen good which he did not know the content of.
>>55494887
> a woman slapped me
> I slapped her back
It's called "reasonable force" to neutralize the threat to yourself and the people around you.
Also:
> a woman slapped my girlfriend
> I slapped the woman to stop the physical assault
Perfectly acceptable.
> some cunt punches me in the face / other lethal level violence against my body
> I nose-punch him with an undercut
> drive the bone fragments from his nasal cavity into his brain
> major brain damage, he's a vegetable for life
> maybe he dies
Perfectly acceptable.
In fact, the police teach our citizens how to deliver that exact punch to protect themselves from assault &/or rape here in the U.S. We teach our children how to deliver that punch in case an adult is trying to abduct them.
Perfectly acceptable self-defense.
Once you put your body in physical contact with another person's body with any sort of physical intimidation or other hostile intent, you have just committed physical assault. Grab a person by the hand and try to force them to do anything, physical assault.
Your response to that has to be VASTLY out of proportion before the police will even bother charging you.
>>55492682
Fuck off you pansy cunt.
>>55495571
We just really love guns, to be honest.
>>55495536
>Changes literally nothing.
it does, because without any reason to believe they would return you couldnt possibly argue that he actually intended to poison them
Well what if someone broke into your house and put a gun against your head and said I'll kill your father if you don't have sex with your mother?
Then you'd have to have sex with your sister
>>55495478
She had a logical judgement Ya fixin idiot. Dude fit 5 peeps violently ill and killed one fir stealing. Eye for an eye, but a fuckin head.
>>55495487
>By your logic, he should be jailed for shooting them when they break into his house because he knew they would come back.
I'm pretty sure this literally happens. Anyway blame the law makers, not the law. I'm just telling it like it is.
>>55495536
How does it change nothing? By your logic you literally cannot go to jail for poisoning someone unless you force feed them poison, because nobody's forcing them to consume whatever item you poisoned with the intent to kill them.
>this guy I hate drinks coffee from the same place every day
>so I poisoned his coffee
>he died
>but it's not my fault because he didn't HAVE to drink the coffee today
-literally, unironically, you
>>55495670
intention is irrelevant when they are the ones breaking the law and not him.
>thieves break down door to ransack a guy's house
>fearing their return, guy replaces shitty cardboard door with a thick as fuck hardwood door
>thieves come back and are unable to break down the door because they're weak pieces of shit
>sue the guy for willfully obstructing them with malicious intent
>>55494363
There was an incident in the UK in 2013 or 2014 of a drunk slag who for absolutely no reason glassed a guy in the face and sliced his entire face up bad, almost causing permanent loss of sight. She was only fined even though she had over a dozen assaults charges in the past for viciously attacking strangers for no reason.
>>55495717
Intention is everything.
>>55495677
By your sister, do you mean the mother of you or the mother of your children?
>>55495701
>I'm just telling it like it is.
Stand Your Ground laws tell me differently. You have your head in the sand and ignoring the law and in logic.
>>55495680
Now all thieves can rest easy knowing that the people they steal from have a legal obligation to make sure the goods they steal are safe for consumption/use.
Truly progressive.
>>55495735
Wrong, action is.
You could intend to go home and not run anyone over when you're driving drunkedly but if you kill someone then too bad.
>>55495731
>she
>>55495638
>person has a piece of shit car
>some kid takes it on a joyride several times but always returns it
>owner gets mad, cuts his own cars brake conduit
>car crashes and kills people
>car owner is held accountable for the actions of the thief
this is more like it
>>55495631
see >>55495391
>>55495752
Well if the law's different where you live and allows you to kill someone for punching you then good for you I guess.
>>55492641
>>55493945
Both these men have my sympathy.
Our ancient kings were the ones who could handle this problem effectively. If someone steals something, let's chop his body part that he did it with. Simple crime prevention method that actually worked and would work in case of our beloved gypos as well.
>>55495790
That's nice but it's not how law works senpai.
>>55492641
now you're no longer allowed to store anything that may hurt other people in your house
remember guys
bin them knives
throw the glass
push the dangerous furniture away
give away the plastic toys, someone might choke on it after all
>>55493598
No, but you wouldn't leave the gun there for the kid to shoot himself.
You faggots can't into law, can you?
If you leave rat poison unattended, and some fag eats it, it's an accident. If you camouflage rat poison putting it into something because you know some fag will eat I and you want him to die, it's murder. You had the intent to kill the guys.
It's as simple as that.
>>55495826
bombs
mines
cruise missiles
if I just wanna keep them in my home, why does it matter
>>55492641
>justifying murder with intent
>>55492682
>getting buttblasted when someone calls you out
pic fucking related
Just more proof that wine tastes like shit and you can't tell if you're drinking fucking anti-freeze or fermented grape juice.
>>55495853
based spain
why did we fight
we could have ruled the world
>>55495814
>Well if the law's different where you live and allows you to kill someone for punching you then good for you I guess.
Yes, it is good for me. People tend not to punch me when they know that they could get shot and possibly die and I'd get off scot-free for self-defense. I bet your country must be great, where the instigators get defended and you get reaped all your property because they were looking for a fight.
>>55495855
>knives and glass to bombs and mines
top kek
>>55495870
Or, those subhumans have the palate worse than that of a shit-eating dog.
>>55495892
Yeah must be great living in a place where if someone hates me they can instantly end my life with a bullet instead of trying to fist fight me.
>>55495824
You have much to learn, anon-kun. Learn about DUIs. You may be shocked to learn what you will.
>>55495914
disguised poison hidden with the intent to kill people I know will show up and drink it unintentionally
>defendin muh properties
>>55495701
>By your logic you literally cannot go to jail for poisoning someone unless you force feed them poison
No, oz, by my logic you literally cannot go to jail for ANYTHING that occurs with things stolen from you.
>I steal your kitchen knives
>stab people with them
>you go to jail
NOPE
>I steal your lightbulbs
>eat them and die of internal hemorraging
>you go to jail
NOPE
>I steal your fatass girlfriend
>knock the ugly cunt up
>you have to pay child support
NOPE
You seeing the pattern?
Once the theft has occurred, the thief is on the hook for what happens.
It doesn't matter in the least what you've done to your property, if I'm breaking and entering, absconding with possessions, it's now my responsibility. Any danger those items represent are now my responsibility by way of my actions. I didn't accidentally obtain them, I purposely took them. Doesn't matter how tricksy or poisonous or dangerous or contaminated they are.
No thief has the right to safe stolen goods.
>>55492682
>implying anyone will miss some thieving little shits
I wish we could just be honest about this kind of stuff
>>55495855
>>55495826
Also, you're not allowed to posess raw chicken, someone might die from eating it after all!
>>55495826
if you store a dangerous substance and a child inadvertently drinks it you are going to jail too
you have no sense of justice
>>55495933
Yeah, because criminals obey laws, right?
There's absolutely no way that they can illegally obtain firearms! Just look at mexico!
>>55495945
>being a retard
top cluck bongo
>>55495965
no man has the right to murder, the crimes of the other person has no relevance to that statement
you are a pyschopath looking for an excuse to kill
>>55495701
Tricking someone into drinking poison or force feeding them is a crime, but just poisoning wine in your wine cellar isn't, no matter the intent. If you lace some cheese or bread with anti-freeze and put it on the ground in your cellar, next to your wine for rats and the burglars eat it, are you still responsible? Nope.
>>55495809
Idk the exact regulations for Germany, but here cars need to have a Roadworthy Certificate in order to be legally allowed on the road. It's perfectly legal to own a non-roadworthy car as long as you keep it on your private property. It can have cut brakes, zero tyre tread, no ABS brakes, no traction control, a gearbox which doesn't correspond with the actual letters/numbers on the stick etc and it is still perfectly legal to own it privately. If someone were to steal it, it is entirely their fault for stealing it and the residual effects that come from it.
>>55496003
>I leave mines all over my backyard
>some kid comes in to get his frisbee
>whatthefuck.jpg
>he blows up
Serves him right for invading my property
>>55496012
good joke anon
you are joking, correct?
>>55496012
>self-defense
>murder
Maybe for you cluckboi.
>>55496047
Good one, such profound insight into property rights and self defense.
>>55496047
Stupid fucking kid should have asked the home owner first.
>>55496047
False, keeping explosive weapons is illegal, keeping anti-freeze isn't.
>>55496012
>no man has the right to murder
You don't even know what the word "murder" means.
The thieves killed themselves by making use of stolen goods. They murdered themselves.
>the goods were dangerous!!!!!
Again, thieves do not have the right to safe stolen property.
>>55495965
again those are all items where you can not assume intent. they may be dangerous in and of themselves, but you did not actively modify them with the intent to cause harm.
>>55496073
How is it self defense? It's poison
>>55495965
I don't know if you're just a dense motherfucker or a psycho.
Intent is the key word there, faggot. You are responsible because you set up a fucking trap to kill the thieves. They didn't get killed on the own. He poisoned the wine because he knew they would drink it.
Intent makes it murder. One crime doesn't excuse another one.
>>55495965
The one thing missing from your examples is murderous intent. Here are some amendments to make them more relevant:
>you steal my knives
>which I have enchanted with a hex that compels you to go on a mass murdering spree
>stab people with them
>I go to jail
Yes.
>you steal my lightbulbs
>which I have enchanted with a hex that compels you to eat them and die
>you eat them and die
>I go to jail
Yes.
>you steal my girlfriend
>knock her up
>I have to pay child support
Actually no, this isn't property theft and I can't even think of an absurd spin to put on it because it's so unrelated.
Moving on to:
>you steal my wine
>which I know you will drink and have therefore poisoned it
>you drink it and die
>I go to jail
Yes.
You seeing the pattern?
>>55496073
>self defense
is not a universal defense, self defense must be proportional to be self defense
if someone is attacking you with a knife and in the struggle he gets cut fatally, that is understandable
if someone steals and you intend to kill them by poisoning then that is murder
Now I remembered, we had a similar case here. Some old fart prepared homemade canned fruit, but it was apricots and he left the kernels. So they developed into cyanide. Some gyppos stole them and ate them and they died. Is that guy now a murderer?
>>55496138
Oh, you're still talking about poison?
I thought you were just going on insane ramblings and prayer with nothing connected to this case.
>>55496138
>How is it self defense? It's poison
>self-de·fense
noun
noun: self-defence; noun: self-defense
the defense of one's person or interests, especially through the use of physical force, which is permitted in certain cases as an answer to a charge of violent crime.
"he claimed self-defense in the attempted murder charge"
Translate self defense to:
How is it NOT? It fits every criterion.
>>55496047
Let me fix that for you
>mines are legal for some reason in your analogy
>I leave mines all over my backyard
>kid comes in to steal mines
>takes them home and blows himself and his friends up
>wow_its_fucking_nothing.png
Kid assumed responsibility when he ran off with the mines.
>>55496031
You are responsible for intending to kill and succeeding in it. That's why the guy got sent to fucking jail. Because the law states this to be the case.
I don't understand how you fucks can be so dense. You literally cannot argue "this isn't the case!" because it literally is, and there is a news article in the OP which proves it. The only thing you can possibly argue is "this SHOULDN'T BE the case".
>>55492682
the ausfag is right for once
why didn't he call the police instead of playing le randomvigilantexD?
>>55492993
I don't go around drinking other people's bottles of wine, so I would be completely fine with it
>>55495976
Check the flag before you get baited next time mate.
>>55496132
>you did not actively modify them with the intent to cause harm.
Simply doesn't matter.
No thief has the right to safe and properly labelled stolen goods.
>>55496116
murder is killing with intent to kill, it's pretty clearly defined
it is a typical trait of psychopaths to try and bend the letter of the law to justify any action they take
to rational thinking people the case is unambiguous
if he had simply stored a dangerous fluid in an old bottle because he had nowhere else to put it, and that bottle was stolen the case would be different
but that is not the case he put the fluid there with the intent to kill, not to store
simple shit
>>55496148
Maybe in your magical world. See how you have to resort to some otherworldly phenominon to defend your positions? Because there's nothing in this world that can conform to your argument and have it sound or logical.
That speaks enough about how ass-backwards you think.
>>55496162
Sure anon, we poison people all the time, it is self defense.
We should be able to have booby traps.
>>55496180
>violent crime
theft is not such a thing
>certain cases
again it must be proportional
it does not fit even your own definition
>>55496180
>attacked by muggers late at night
>offer one a sip of water
>hahaha he bought into it, it was poison
>get mugged
>get killed
>5 days later
>mugger dies
self defence
>>55496043
if no one has ever stolen your car before and you have no reason to believe its going to be stolen any time soon you can leave your non-roadworthy car in your drive way and hold no responsibility if someone steals it and crashes. now if there was a history of joyrides involving your car and examination of the car shows that you cut the brakes it is reasonable to assume that you did it with the intent to cause a crash in case it gets stolen again.
>>55496237
>point
>your head
Your examples were so irrelevant that I had to add magic to make them relevant. Just goes to show that there needs to be a miracle for the other half of your brain to start working.
>>55496224
The thieves were the ones who did the act of murder. They committed suicide regardless of the homeowners intent.
>>55496256
He wasn't advertising his house to be robbed. See: >>55495283
>>55496284
>the poisoning victim drank the poison themselves, it's suicide
P S Y C H O
S
Y
C
H
O
>>55496314
>>55495021
>intentionally try to trick the thieves into killing themselves without them knowing
Are you suggesting the farmer lured the thieves into his house?
Are you suggesting the farmer manipulated their upbringing to give them lax opinions on personal property?
Are you suggesting the farmer put a sign up in front of his property saying "IN CASE YOU WANT FREE WINE, BREAK GLASS?"
No, the farmer didn't "trick" anyone. They broke into his house and took his possessions. At that point, it's 100% on them.
By your twisted logic, if the farmer owned a gun and put blanks into it, and the thieves stole the gun, then later went on to defend themselves in a shootout the farmer would be responsible for the thieves dying because of the blanks.
Nothing that occurs to the thieves by a result of stolen goods is the farmer's responsibility, regardless of what the goods were. The act of theft transfers responsibility completely.
>>55495819
>advocating shariah law
>its okay because some cool ancient dude with a sword says so
>>55496222
that is your opinion but the law (in hungary) says otherwise. if it was up to me the man wouldnt be charged either, but the law in most of europe is pretty clear about that.
>>55496141
>>55496148
You two are too fucking hung up on the "tricked" part.
>I know thieves are going to break into my house
>poison them
OH NO, THOSE POOR FUCKING SCUMMY THIEVES!
>I know thieves are going to break into my house
>release the hounds
>they all die from their wounds
PERFECTLY LEGAL
>I know thieves are going to break into my house
>confront them with a 12 gauge
PERFECTLY LEGAL
In your minds, all the difference in the world is that they were "tricked" into operating unsafe stolen goods. It's their problem, they're the ones who killed themselves with the unsafe goods, not the farmer.
>>55496347
>>55496364
>tfw burgerbros bend over backwards for blood lust
I love this country, stay clucked rest of the world.
>>55496347
He predicted his target's movements and acted accordingly to kill them. Again, by your logic it is impossible to be charge for murder by poisoning unless you force feed someone poison.
>>55496364
>In your minds
No, this is objectively how it is according to the law. Deal with it loser.
>>55496314
>trying to rationalize a worldview that resulted from being brainwashed
>commiting typical defense tactic of far leftist by labeling people who dont agree as some type of public enemy or undesirable
>>55496224
>murder is killing with intent to kill
Absolutely not.
Murder is the premeditated killing of innocent people.
I knew you didn't even know the meaning of the word. There was no innocent victims. It wasn't murder.
>heavy thievery and other heavier crimes now on death penalty
>crime almost non-existant
>prisons no longer drain tax money
so tell me, why haven't we adopted this yet
>>55496422
>killing guilty people is fine
>>55496443
The Jews
>>55496224
"Intent to kill" is not a crime. The homeowner committed no crime, he is neither a criminal nor a murderer. It's that simple.
>>55496443
are you fucking retarded
>>55496416
>this is objectively how it is according to the law.
Not where I live.
I can shoot an unarmed thief in the back running out of my neighbors house and it's perfectly legal. Criminals don't have much in the way of rights in burgerland, ausfalia.
>>55496469
>"Intent to kill" is not a crime
It is if you follow through with that intent and take action to kill, which is precisely what the guy did.
>>55496347
>Are you suggesting the farmer lured the thieves into his house?
nothing to do with the issue
>Are you suggesting the farmer manipulated their upbringing to give them lax opinions on personal property?
nothing to do with the issue
>Are you suggesting the farmer put a sign up in front of his property saying "IN CASE YOU WANT FREE WINE, BREAK GLASS?"
nothing to do with the issue
>No, the farmer didn't "trick" anyone. They broke into his house and took his possessions. At that point, it's 100% on them.
the thieves had previously taken wine, so they knew what was in the bottles, he replaced the wine with poison so next time they would think it was wine when it really wasn't. that's tricking, theft has nothing to do with the issue
>By your twisted logic, if the farmer owned a gun and put blanks into it, and the thieves stole the gun, then later went on to defend themselves in a shootout the farmer would be responsible for the thieves dying because of the blanks.
nothing to do with the issue
>Nothing that occurs to the thieves by a result of stolen goods is the farmer's responsibility, regardless of what the goods were. The act of theft transfers responsibility completely.
if something occurs that kills them, as a result of the owners intent to kill them, then the farmer is at fault, completely regardless of what crimes the thieves commit
two crimes do not make a left
>>55496503
>criminals have no rights
>americans wonder why their own rights are being eroded
>>55496466
>killing guilty people is fine
Yes. Yes it is.
>>55496416
>Again, by your logic it is impossible to be charge for murder by poisoning unless you force feed someone poison.
It wasn't fucking chocolate flavored fondue with a microgram of cyanide, it was 2 goddamned liters ANTI-FREEZE with a little wine mixed in. He didn't even have the intent to kill. He only wanted them to back off and to defend his property.
There was no intent to murder and this was a suicide. Holy crap I'm done with you, you're beyond reason.
>>55496503
right, but we are arguing about a case in hungary, not the state where you live.
>>55496503
This isn't a imminent physical threat case though,
I love every burgerbros reactionary stance on self defense, keep on truckin lads.
>>55496506
Again, he did not kill anyone. The defendants killed themselves by drinking antifreeze.
>>55496443
statistically death penalty has a positive correlation with higher crime rates in the states that have them
harsher penalties tend to breed harsher crimes
now look at norway, very low crime rate among the native population, and very lax punishments with intent to reform rather than punish
>>55496503
if a law is unjust etc.
>>55496543
No, we aren't.
We're doing what /pol/ does. We're being outraged over some headline from around the world. Often we like to put spins on it such as "what a shithole, in my country yada yada yada." Do you really want fuck about by reading and debating actual Hungarian law, Hans?
>>55496589
>harsher penalties tend to breed harsher crimes
proofs?
>>55496538
>there was no intent to kill
if there was no intent to kill he would have laced it with something nasty but not lethal
again, bending the letter of the law, and the truth of the circumstances to try and justify any action taken is a hallmark of psychopathy
>>55496563
No, you don't get it.
I can shoot an unarmed thief that poses no imminent physical threat to me, even if he's leaving/escaping my neighbors house.
Where I live, any attempt at property theft = you are risking your very life.
>>55496350
This king i attached is a Christian saint, nothing to do with sharia.
>>55496503
Well good for you senpai (senior). Too bad that's not how the law is in Hungary.
>>55496538
If that were true he would have filled it with piss or laxatives, rather than a POISON which apparently tastes no different to wine.
>but poison isn't poison so how could he be charged with manslaughter by using poison?
Yeah I'm glad you're done wasting my time.
>>55496573
You go poison someone and use that argument then.
>but your honor, the guy consumed the poison himself, so it was suicide
Let me know how it works out for you.
>>55496642
Yes, I have very similar laws, but this is in Yurop and something completely different.
>>55496642
legally sanctioned murder is still murder
>>55496696
F A G
A
G
>>55496514
>that's tricking,
OH NO, NOT TRICKING!
HOW FUCKING AWFUL!
No criminal has the right to safe and properly labelled stolen goods. No one has any responsibility to provide a safe and secure experience for robbers and thieves.
Release the hounds!
>>55496696
>legally sanctioned murder is still murder
You keep getting "murder" and "killing" confused.
Not every killing is murder, you know that right? The words mean different things. Wait, how's your english, danish? Maybe your country has a different set of words for these actions.
>>55496422
Not according to the law it's not.
Murder is killing with intent. You are a murderer even if you kill a thief, a pedo or a rapist, and even if you are the victim, unless you were defending yourself from them and you were I grave danger.
It's the same reason cops have to justify their use of lethal force when they shoot someone. The law states pretty clearly that.
>>55496725
you have a responsibility to not kill, and especially not murder, the crimes of the other person has no effect on this responsibility
still looking for excuses to give up your own responsibility
>>55496780
you're right, accidents happen, such as car accidents, or accidental use of force, i.e. a lethal punch you only meant to be a KO. all of these things are not murder
poisoning someone is murder
>leave a grenade on my counter
>some people breaks in and steals it
>they pull the pin and play hot potato with it because they don't think it's a real greande
>they both die
I'm so sorry, it's completely my fault for not locking up my house better
I kinda miss the wine though
>>55496781
Nope.
I'm going to assume you're having the same language problem as the dane.
Killing isn't murder. Killing with intent isn't murder.
Only the affirmative action of premeditated killing of an innocent is murder.
That's why things terms like "manslaughter" exist. Not all killing is murder.
>>55496781
You can use lethal physical force in the defense of or facilitating of a felonious crime such as rape, arson, child molesting etcetc.
State by state basis, here anyway.
>>55496668
much apologies then
are you from budapest?
brb replacing all dangerous liquids in my house with nutritious juices in case someone steals them.
>>55496844
>you have a responsibility to not kill
Absolutely not. In rare cases, I have a moral obligation TO kill.
>the crimes of the other person has no effect on this responsibility
The entire concept of "self-defense" disagrees with you.
>poisoning someone is murder
Think it through. The farmer poisoned NO ONE. He poisoned wine. He murdered wine! If no one stole it, and if no one consumed it, no one would have been poisoned!
>>55496988
>I have a moral obligation to kill
from where? there is no moral that says killing is ok
>The entire concept of "self-defense" disagrees with you.
self defence is the use of force to prevent your own harm, its intent is not to harm the other, but to prevent them from harming you
if you use more force than is necessary you are no longer doing self defence
>Think it through. The farmer poisoned NO ONE. He poisoned wine. He murdered wine! If no one stole it, and if no one consumed it, no one would have been poisoned!
he poisened the wine with the intent to kill, if the theives had not come he would not have poisened the wine
cause is that which when it ceases, the effect also ceases
>>55496881
np, yes.
>>55496987
>still not getting it
>>55493002
USA went to shit when we let women start voting. They make decisions with their feelings like children do.
>>55496364
You're right. Maybe not legally, but you're right.
The aussie kek arguing with you is another stain on this country.
God bless Ameribro.
>>55497157
>a ton of americans sperging out about their feels-rights to kill
>women are the problem
top kek
>>55497092
>there is no moral that says killing is ok
Every soldier that fights for his country has to kill to win the battle. Every cop that shoots a terrorist or hostage taker is killing and it's okay. If I saw someone about to kill me or another innocent person I would be morally obligated to kill that person first.
>if you use more force than is necessary you are no longer doing self defence
Depends on the law of the land, but if I'm on my property, any and all trespassers are risking their lives the second they step onto it.
>he poisened the wine with the intent to kill
No, he poisoned the wine with the intent of having the thieves kill themselves with it.
The only way you could be right is if the thieves broke in, the owner caught them, and forced them at gunpoint to drink poisoned wine. At that point he killed them with poison.
As soon as the wine left his property, though, it was the thieves killing themselves with it.
>b-but he tricked them!
No thief has the right to safe and properly labelled stolen goods.
>>55497092
Except this guys clearly stated his intent was to not kill someone, he was also not charged with murder, because it's not ;^)
>vermin eats my food
>put out poison to stop vermin
Perfectly legal in sane countries.
>>55497228
>No, he poisoned the wine with the intent of having the thieves kill themselves with it.
which is the same as poisoning with intent to kill, that is how all poisoning works
>No thief has the right to safe and properly labelled stolen goods.
every thief has the right not to be killed for their crimes
>>55497257
vermin are not people
>Every soldier that fights for his country has to kill to win the battle. Every cop that shoots a terrorist or hostage taker is killing and it's okay. If I saw someone about to kill me or another innocent person I would be morally obligated to kill that person first.
War is generally considered to be a bad thing. Killing in defense of others is a gray zone, similar to self defense. And you have to be able to justify that it was necessary.
>>55497234
>shoot someone
>I didn't intend to kill
oh well that's alright then
>>55497340
>comparing immediate physical threat and the intentional/unintentional poisoning of a person
RETARD
E
T
A
R
D
>>55497340
>"don't push this button" sign in front of a button (a lock on a door)
>person pushes button anyway (breaks the lock and intrudes)
>they get shot in the head (they drink poisoned wine)
It's their own fault, sure, they might not have known that pushing the button would kill them, but they explicitly told not to
>>55497383
>sperging out this hard trying to justify murder
>>55497430
if you shot someone in the head for pushing a button you'd go to jail in any state
>>55497435
>that's what fucking LAW is
RETARD
>>55497340
>that is how all poisoning works
Except no one would be poisoned if no one stole and consumed stolen goods.
If (no theft) then -> no one harmed;
else -> it's all on the thieves;
>War is generally considered to be a bad thing.
War kills despots and dictators. War frees slaves. War is brutal, but it isn't bad. I'll take war over enslavement any day. And yes, bad people are going to get killed.
>>55493945
>The old man was sentenced for like 8 years, despite he was like 80 years old.
Wow, that's ridiculous. Of all places I'd think Hungary would be the last European country that would allow that
>What happens in usa? Like, if you put traps around your own plot, and somebody, illegally sneaks in, and dies, what happens?
It's pretty much if a stranger trespasses on your property you have a right to defend it. Property owners are not liable for injuries to trespassers.
>>55497430
You missed a step.
>"don't push this button" sign in front of a button (a lock on a door)
>the door is in my basement that you'd have to break into to find
>person BREAKS IN and pushes button anyway (breaks the lock and intrudes)
>they get shot in the head (they drink poisoned wine)
>>55497451
it's a hypothetical situation
>>55497533
You can defend it but you can't booby trap your yard senpai.
>>55497501
>War kills despots and dictators. War frees slaves.
>this is what amerikeks actually believe
>>55497481
>THE LAW
doesn't matter, the law is not moral
>>55497501
>Except no one would be poisoned if no one stole and consumed stolen goods.
no, all poisoning involves the victim ingesting the substance themselves, all poisoning does not involve theft
the two are not related
>programming metaphor
ok so you just have crippling autism that prevent you from having empathy or thinking rationally
>>55493945
He wasn't clear in >>55497533 but traps are mostly illegal in the US, because they could go off and kill innocent people like first responders (firemen, etc).
But the premise is correct, trespassers are risking their lives when they trespass.
>>55497630
>doesn't matter, the law is not moral
trash.png
Get your feefees the fuck outa here and pave way for law and order you fucking faggot.
>>55497643
>>55497585
Looks like there's more to this >>55497533 in the US
>"When people trespass with some regularity, property owners may begin to expect continued trespassing. In such a situation, the rationale of the general rule is destroyed. Now, the property owner can anticipate that dangerous conditions could pose safety hazards to people on the property. Thus, many states require property owners to warn discovered trespassers of dangerous conditions"
The farmer did have a sign that said it was electric
>>55497689
if a law was passed that required you to kill yourself for being cis scum would you follow it because it is moral?
>>55497630
>>this is what amerikeks actually believe
Just admit that you'd have buttsex with anyone that means you harm and be done with it already.
>all poisoning involves the victim ingesting the substance themselves
If someone steals something from me, I can't be held accountable for what they do with it. I'm not poisoning them if they stole it.
Look, I know you're slow, but let's try this again. If I take a bottle of antifreeze, and write "DELISHUS WINE" on and store it in my basement I haven't poisoned ANYONE.
If someone breaks into my basement and steals it, regardless of whether I know some people want to, it's NOT MY PROBLEM.
I still haven't poisoned a single motherfucker.
Now, you have some thieves with some stolen goods they believe to be delicious wine. At that point, anything that occurs is their problem. Their presumption that the object is delicious wine and not antifreeze is predicated on their theft. Their theft enabled their current scenario. The only way they ended up with a dangerous object in their hands is because they stole it. So when they drink the "wine" it's not me that has poisoned them, it's is they that are the poisoners.
>>55497874
>ad nauseam
this concludes the debate, leaving me the winner be default as you have failed to defend your position
>>55497962
No, you lost
>>55497792
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney
There's a difference between a trap and a booby trap (concealed trap). Concealed traps are illegal pretty much all over the US. And just "traps" legality varies by state.
>>55497962
>you have failed to defend your position
And you've failed to even state your position other than "all killing is murder."
I mean, put some effort into your craziness.
>>55497340
>>shoot someone
>>I didn't intend to kill
>oh well that's alright then
Yes, it is alright, do you not know the definition of manslaughter or are you some dumb teenager who thinks it's just a scary way of saying murder? Shit happens, accidentally shooting someone can be legal if you can prove 100% without a doubt that it wasn't intentional.
![anti_freeze[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/4V3u1vJ.jpg "anti freeze[1]")
![release_the_hounds[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/uXnFCRC.gif "release the hounds[1]")
![61QtzUfYG0L._SL1270_[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/RSHZfLI.jpg "61QtzUfYG0L. SL1270 [1]")
