[munkymanmatt]

Originally Posted by MagicSean

It doesn't change his intention.



You can justify it to yourself all you want. The intent behind doing what the op has highlighted is clear. And at the end of the day, the intent is what is needed for a murder charge.

His intention wouldn't matter, because a murder charge would not be brought against him. Where there is a warning sign put up it would be death by misadventure - The thief knew he was going to ingest a dangerous chemical chose to do so anyway.
If you think someone would be brought up on a murder charge circumstances like this, why are alcohol distillers and brewers not brought forward for manslaughter when someone dies of alcohol poisoning?

[MagicSean]

Originally Posted by munkymanmatt

His intention wouldn't matter, because a murder charge would not be brought against him. Where there is a warning sign put up it would be death by misadventure - The thief knew he was going to ingest a dangerous chemical chose to do so anyway.
If you think someone would be brought up on a murder charge circumstances like this, why are alcohol distillers and brewers not brought forward for manslaughter when someone dies of alcohol poisoning?

Because they don't have the intent?

For the purpose of a murder charge intent is pretty much all that matters.

[CKonetheonlyone]

I'm a novice at this (first year student), so it's probably appropriate to frame this as a question..
did the occupiers liability act 1995 not dispense with the duty of care of the occupier NOT to act with reckless disregard for the trespasser on to premises whose intention is to commit a criminal act? (leaving the only remaining duty of care not to intentionally damage his property?)

[MagicSean]

Originally Posted by CKonetheonlyone

I'm a novice at this (first year student), so it's probably appropriate to frame this as a question..
did the occupiers liability act 1995 not dispense with the duty of care of the occupier NOT to act with reckless disregard for the entrant on to premises whose intention is to commit a criminal act? (leaving the only remaining duty of care not to intentionally damage his property?)

This isn't a duty of care issue. This is a deliberate action by the owner to mix diesel with caustic soda with the intention that it be mistaken as diesel and cause serious harm or death to someone. It's important to note that for the purpose of a murder charge the intention does not have to be directed at a specific person.

[munkymanmatt]

Originally Posted by MagicSean

Because they don't have the intent?

For the purpose of a murder charge intent is pretty much all that matters.

Exactly why I said manslaughter and not murder.
What about actus reus? He would not have forced the diesel down his throat, the thief would do so voluntarily and in the course of a criminal act. Even if a charge was brought, I really doubt the court would find that someone should be held accountable for injuries sustained by another's actions in the course of their voluntary criminal act.
It is one thing if the guy starts swinging a bat at the thief. It is entirely another if the thief kills himself by accident.

EDIT: the above post, it's also important to note that mere intention is not enough.

[MagicSean]

Originally Posted by munkymanmatt

Exactly why I said manslaughter and not murder.
What about actus reus? He would not have forced the diesel down his throat, the thief would do so voluntarily and in the course of a criminal act. Even if a charge was brought, I really doubt the court would find that someone should be held accountable for injuries sustained by another's actions in the course of their voluntary criminal act.
It is one thing if the guy starts swinging a bat at the thief. It is entirely another if the thief kills himself by accident.

EDIT: the above post, it's also important to note that mere intention is not enough.

Sorry, I didn't notice the manslaughter. Alcohol is not a lethal poison in the quantity it is sold in. If anyone, the publican would be the one that would be charged. Wasn't there actually a case on this recently?

In regards to the actus reus, the act is the mixing of the caustic soda with the diesel. No different than setting a lethal trap for someone.

[munkymanmatt]

Originally Posted by MagicSean

Sorry, I didn't notice the manslaughter. Alcohol is not a lethal poison in the quantity it is sold in. If anyone, the publican would be the one that would be charged. Wasn't there actually a case on this recently?

In regards to the actus reus, the act is the mixing of the caustic soda with the diesel. No different than setting a lethal trap for someone.

I was thinking more in the context of an off license, let's say a man goes in and buys 2 litres of whiskey!

I really can't agree with you on this one. That's simply not a positive enough act to constitute murder. The guy knows the thieves are after diesel, if he marks the tank as caustic liquid (no matter what was in the tank) he cannot be held to have expected them to ingest its contents. Why would they even try it? It's marked as hazardous. If they want to take the risk that's their own fault not his. It's not a trap, it's a tank with hazardous chemicals.

[MagicSean]

Originally Posted by munkymanmatt

I was thinking more in the context of an off license, let's say a man goes in and buys 2 litres of whiskey!

I really can't agree with you on this one. That's simply not a positive enough act to constitute murder. The guy knows the thieves are after diesel, if he marks the tank as caustic liquid (no matter what was in the tank) he cannot be held to have expected them to ingest its contents. Why would they even try it? It's marked as hazardous. If they want to take the risk that's their own fault not his. It's not a trap, it's a tank with hazardous chemicals.

If he puts a fake sign up and no caustic soda then it would be fine. If he emptied the diesel and filled it would caustic soda then he could claim it was for storage. But the act of mixing it with the diesel indicates that he intends it to be confused with diesel. Why else would he mix it with the diesel?

EDIT: As to the off licence example. It can be easily assumed the whiskey would be drank safely. On the other hand if the person crawled in, coughing up blood with eyes as red as a united jersey and they were still served then I could see some trouble there.

[munkymanmatt]

Originally Posted by MagicSean

If he puts a fake sign up and no caustic soda then it would be fine. If he emptied the diesel and filled it would caustic soda then he could claim it was for storage. But the act of mixing it with the diesel indicates that he intends it to be confused with diesel. Why else would he mix it with the diesel?

EDIT: As to the off licence example. It can be easily assumed the whiskey would be drank safely. On the other hand if the person crawled in, coughing up blood with eyes as red as a united jersey and they were still served then I could see some trouble there.

As previously discussed, because he wants to spoil the diesel and cause damage to the thieves' equipment.

Following from the off license scenario, it can also be easily assumed that someone who intends to handle liquids coming out of a tank that says "hazardous materials" on it will not allow the substance to get in their mouths/eyes etc., thief or not.

[Pkiernan]

Whole thing is a non-issue, as nothing will happen to the tank owner if he takes the simple step of labelling his tank as containing corssives.

The OP's friend only mistake was telling someone about the Caustic Soda.

Legal reasons aside, fair play to the victim here.

I would recommend that he labels his tank as containing corrosive liquid. I myself would be perfectly content to have the sign in such a place as to be less than easy to see in the hours of darkness. I would probably aim a spotlight at the other tanks, leaving the tainted one in the shadows too.


You will always get the ultra-left wingers here who believe thieves have the right to take what you work for. Until normal people stand up for themselves, nothing will change.

[MagicSean]

Originally Posted by munkymanmatt

As previously discussed, because he wants to spoil the diesel and cause damage to the thieves' equipment.

There we have it, his intention is to cause damage. So his intention is for the boobytrapped liquid to be taken. So should he not reasonably foresee that it would also injure or kill someone too.

Originally Posted by munkymanmatt

Following from the off license scenario, it can also be easily assumed that someone who intends to handle liquids coming out of a tank that says "hazardous materials" on it will not allow the substance to get in their mouths/eyes etc., thief or not.

Not if they think it is only diesel and the signs are a ruse, which is likely what they would think, unless one of them is a chemist.

[MagicSean]

Originally Posted by Pkiernan

Whole thing is a non-issue, as nothing will happen to the tank owner if he takes the simple step of labelling his tank as containing corssives.

The OP's friend only mistake was telling someone about the Caustic Soda.

Legal reasons aside, fair play to the victim here.

I would recommend that he labels his tank as containing corrosive liquid. I myself would be perfectly content to have the sign in such a place as to be less than easy to see in the hours of darkness. I would probably aim a spotlight at the other tanks, leaving the tainted one in the shadows too.


You will always get the ultra-left wingers here who believe thieves have the right to take what you work for. Until normal people stand up for themselves, nothing will change.

Who said they have the right to take from you? I just don't think you have the right to kill them for taking some boobytrapped diesel. I mean if it is worth so little to you that you would ruin it with chemicals then it is hardly something worth killing for is it?

[munkymanmatt]

Originally Posted by MagicSean

There we have it, his intention is to cause damage. So his intention is for the boobytrapped liquid to be taken. So should he not reasonably foresee that it would also injure or kill someone too.



Not if they think it is only diesel and the signs are a ruse, which is likely what they would think, unless one of them is a chemist.

Maybe it is. That's a possibility I suggested. I doubt his intention is for someone else to be stealing from him though - why would anyone want that? No he should not foresee that - why would a reasonably minded person ingest a chemical from a tank labelled hazardous - even if they thought it was diesel? Why would a reasonably minded person be stealing at all?

[Pkiernan]

Originally Posted by MagicSean

Who said they have the right to take from you? I just don't think you have the right to kill them for taking some boobytrapped diesel. I mean if it is worth so little to you that you would ruin it with chemicals then it is hardly something worth killing for is it?

Please explain how one would die from caustic laced diesel?

Would they normally drink diesel?

Would they normally douse themselves in diesel?

How does the addition of a corrosive imply death for the thief????

As to opinions on the punishment of this crime, in my opinion, it would be worth killing for.

I waste many hours of my life working to earn money. I would be happy to end early the lives of those who steal.

[Peregrinus]

Originally Posted by Pkiernan

Please explain how one would die from caustic laced diesel?

Would they normally drink diesel?

Would they normally douse themselves in diesel?

How does the addition of a corrosive imply death for the thief????

This was covered earlier in the thread. The bloke is having his diesel stolen by people who are siphoning it from his tank. It’s a common practice, when you’ve set up a siphon, to start the flow by sucking. You get a mouthful of whatever it is you’re siphoning, which you then spit out.
Diesel is unpleasant as a mouthwash, but basically harmless. Caustic-laced diesel, however, is not harmless. It will burn severely and, depending on the concentration of caustic in the diesel, the size of the mouthful and other factors, the burn could prove fatal.

Originally Posted by Pkiernan

As to opinions on the punishment of this crime, in my opinion, it would be worth killing for.

I waste many hours of my life working to earn money. I would be happy to end early the lives of those who steal.

Perhaps you would, but that doesn’t mean you have a legal right to end their lives. The question here is not whether we sympathize with the victim of these thefts or with the action he takes in response, but whether he might incur any legal liability.