What are the ramifications of this??

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 16-01-2012 06:09PM

Victor wrote: »

What happens if one of his staff / family / the guy he sells the yard to gets burned / poisoned instead.

If the appropriate warnings are in place nothing should happen and this should not come about in the first place. It's not as if the warning is going to say "this warning applies to trespassers only"

korec · 16-01-2012 06:26PM

Just for clarity when I spoke to him yesterday he was thinking of diluting it with caustic soda, he had not actually done it as of yet, as I might of inferred in my original post. Apologies for my poor wording. I don't know what his intentions are, maybe it was an off the cuff remark and he has no intentions of mixing the chemical agent with diesel. I didn't really think about it much at the time when he said it. I would guess though he's pretty frustrated by the the amount of times he's being targeted this year, I think he said he had in the region of two thousand euros worth of diesel stolen on him in the last year with no retribution for it or help by the justice system. I also know he would use caustic soda as its a chemical agent he requires on some of his day to day works so yes he would have it in stock in his yard. I will relay to him the possible implications when I speak to him next and I'm sure he will refrain from using such a harmful mixed substance.

MagicSean · 16-01-2012 06:51PM

Elsie Fierce Housewife wrote: »

I just gave two reasonable excuses for spoiling diesel with caustic soda instead of something else like flour etc.

On the topic of the car with cut brakes, the owner of the car should only be prosecuted if it can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that he deliberately cut the brakes to cause the injury or death of the thief or another person - which you would find very hard to prove if he was simply performing maintenance on the car.

Those are not reasonable excuses. They are poor excuses and do not address the reasoning behind why he actual did it in the first place. The question you have to ask is "What was your intention when you put caustic soda in the diesel?" The only answer you could give would be to prevent people stealing it. Then you have to ask "how would it prevent them from stealing it". The only answer is "because if they do they will be horribly burned"

DarkJager wrote: »

Absolutely, it would be my property which nobody else should be touching. The fact they are illegally trying to take the car which belongs me should give me right to put whatever preventative measures I like in it...seeing as I own it and they don't. If they crash in to a wall because of it, that's tough luck and a lesson in societal behaviour learned too late.

What car maintenance involves simply disabling the brakes? How is disabling the brakes a preventative measure? Removing the battery would be a preventative measure because the car could not be started. If you cut the brakes you are relying on the driver getting into difficulty.

korec wrote: »

Just for clarity when I spoke to him yesterday he was thinking of diluting it with caustic soda, he had not actually done it as of yet, as I might of inferred in my original post. Apologies for my poor wording. I don't know what his intentions are, maybe it was an off the cuff remark and he has no intentions of mixing the chemical agent with diesel. I didn't really think about it much at the time when he said it. I would guess though he's pretty frustrated by the the amount of times he's being targeted this year, I think he said he had in the region of two thousand euros worth of diesel stolen on him in the last year with no retribution for it or help by the justice system. I also know he would use caustic soda as its a chemical agent he requires on some of his day to day works so yes he would have it in stock in his yard. I will relay to him the possible implications when I speak to him next and I'm sure he will refrain from using such a harmful mixed substance.

Tell him to contact the local crime prevention officer or detective branch with regard to formulating a preventative strategy.

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 16-01-2012 07:10PM

MagicSean wrote: »

Those are not reasonable excuses. They are poor excuses and do not address the reasoning behind why he actual did it in the first place. The question you have to ask is "What was your intention when you put caustic soda in the diesel?" The only answer you could give would be to prevent people stealing it. Then you have to ask "how would it prevent them from stealing it". The only answer is "because if they do they will be horribly burned"

In your opinion they're not.
He could simply answer "to spoil the diesel so thieves couldn't use it". There isn't a hint of intention to harm in that answer.
Besides this, if he put up the required warnings that the tank contained extremely caustic materials, I doubt his intention would even come into it. If I want to put caustic mixtures into one of my oil tanks that's my business.

frag420 · 16-01-2012 07:16PM

MagicSean wrote: »

Those are not reasonable excuses. They are poor excuses and do not address the reasoning behind why he actual did it in the first place. The question you have to ask is "What was your intention when you put caustic soda in the diesel?" The only answer you could give would be to prevent people stealing it. Then you have to ask "how would it prevent them from stealing it". The only answer is "because if they do they will be horribly burned".

Yes, IF they do. They have the option not to. At this point they have been warned of the dangers and now have the option to cease their scumbaggery or risk injury. If they ignore the warning and are willing to risk harm or their lives for some fuel then maybe the OPs friend is doing us all a favour and ridding society of these brainless scumbags!!

MagicSean · 16-01-2012 07:33PM

Elsie Fierce Housewife wrote: »

In your opinion they're not.
He could simply answer "to spoil the diesel so thieves couldn't use it". There isn't a hint of intention to harm in that answer.

I would liken that to saying "Judge I fired my shotgun at the crowd of people because I wanted to get rid of a fly that was bothering me". It's not a reasonable or proportional method of accomplishing your task.

Elsie Fierce Housewife wrote: »

Besides this, if he put up the required warnings that the tank contained extremely caustic materials, I doubt his intention would even come into it. If I want to put caustic mixtures into one of my oil tanks that's my business.

That might work if he was using it to store caustic soda. But the fact that he has mixed it with diesel shows that he intended for it to be mistaken as diesel.

frag420 wrote: »

Yes, IF they do. They have the option not to. At this point they have been warned of the dangers and now have the option to cease their scumbaggery or risk injury. If they ignore the warning and are willing to risk harm or their lives for some fuel then maybe the OPs friend is doing us all a favour and ridding society of these brainless scumbags!!

Ireland doesn't work like that. You can't put a bear trap inside your front door with the intention of cutting the leg off an intruder.

Hunter Mahan · 16-01-2012 07:34PM

They are his tanks and he can put what he likes in them, within reason. He's not making an explosive, there are no illegal substances in the tank so he is ok legally.

Next people will be saying if I cut the brakes in my own car, and someone steals it, I'm at fault, ridiculous..

If it's a business of some sort and people have a right to access at certain times then any hazardous warning sign would suffice.

He is not asking for the diesel mix to be stolen, he is not inviting anyone onto his private property, in fact he is most likely expressly denying unauthorized access.

frag420 · 16-01-2012 07:45PM

MagicSean wrote: »

Ireland doesn't work like that. You can't put a bear trap inside your front door with the intention of cutting the leg off an intruder.

I have to disagree here. If I put a bear trap inside my front door and a big sign on the front of the door saying there is a bear trap inside then by warning someone surely my
Intention is not to harm them but to dissuade them from entering. If they then decide to enter then they are accepting the risk of possible harm.

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 16-01-2012 07:48PM

MagicSean wrote: »

I would liken that to saying "Judge I fired my shotgun at the crowd of people because I wanted to get rid of a fly that was bothering me". It's not a reasonable or proportional method of accomplishing your task.

That might work if he was using it to store caustic soda. But the fact that he has mixed it with diesel shows that he intended for it to be mistaken as diesel.

Now your analogy is flawed. In your example one of the crowd of people would have to pull the trigger themselves. This guy is not throwing caustic diesel at the thieves, it is sitting in a tank. It is entirely reasonable and proportional, it simply ruins the diesel. It is a hazardous chemical but they should not be touching it in the first place - if there are warnings put up he is in the clear. The thieves do NOT have a right to presume the tank contains diesel and is going to be safe, especially so if there is a warning sign put up.

What if they came on the premises to steal a tank's worth of caustic liquid and injured themselves? If there is a warning on the tank saying "Caustic liquid" is it not reasonable to assume then (and only then) that the tank's contents are dangerous and should not be handled? It certainly is. So if they handle it, it is not the landowner's problem.
What you are basically saying is that if someone comes and steals a tub of caustic soda and burns themselves in the process I should be liable even though the tub is obviously going to be marked "caustic soda". I am allowed by law to own caustic soda. The tub is properly marked just as this man's tank would be. What is the problem?

Would you be defending them so vehemently then? What if they injured themselves climbing a barbed wire fence? It is obvious the fence is dangerous. Why should I be liable if they want to take the risk of climbing it (or stealing from a marked tank on the premises) so they can engage in criminal activity?

EDIT: OP, by the way, tell your friend to be careful doing this, apparently caustic soda produces a lot of heat when dissolving! Not good when there's fuel involved

MagicSean · 16-01-2012 07:57PM

Elsie Fierce Housewife wrote: »

Now your analogy is flawed. In your example one of the crowd of people would have to pull the trigger themselves. This guy is not throwing caustic diesel at the thieves, it is sitting in a tank. It is entirely reasonable and proportional, it simply ruins the diesel. It is a hazardous chemical but they should not be touching it in the first place - if there are warnings put up he is in the clear. The thieves do NOT have a right to presume the tank contains diesel and is going to be safe, especially so if there is a warning sign put up.

What if they came on the premises to steal a tank's worth of caustic liquid and injured themselves? If there is a warning on the tank saying "Caustic liquid" is it not reasonable to assume then (and only then) that the tank's contents are dangerous and should not be handled? It certainly is. So if they handle it, it is not the landowner's problem.
What you are basically saying is that if someone comes and steals a tub of caustic soda and burns themselves in the process I should be liable even though the tub is obviously going to be marked "caustic soda". I am allowed by law to own caustic soda. The tub is properly marked just as this man's tank would be. What is the problem?

Would you be defending them so vehemently then? What if they injured themselves climbing a barbed wire fence? It is obvious the fence is dangerous. Why should I be liable if they want to take the risk of climbing it (or stealing from a marked tank on the premises) so they can engage in criminal activity?

You aren't hearing what I am saying. The fact he has mixed it with diesel shows that he intends it to be mistaken as diesel. If he wanted to just store caustic soda he would not put it in with diesel as it would destroy it. There is no other reason for putting caustic soda in a tank of diesel other than to have it mistaken as diesel and cause harm or damage. This is the crux of the matter. This is his intent which he would have a hard time disproving.

Let's just get something straight here. I'm not defending anyone here. Maybe you think vigilante justice is a good idea. Maybe you think that severe chemical burns are a proportionate punishment for stealing a bit of diesel. I disagree.

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 16-01-2012 08:10PM

MagicSean wrote: »

You aren't hearing what I am saying. The fact he has mixed it with diesel shows that he intends it to be mistaken as diesel. If he wanted to just store caustic soda he would not put it in with diesel as it would destroy it. There is no other reason for putting caustic soda in a tank of diesel other than to have it mistaken as diesel and cause harm or damage. This is the crux of the matter. This is his intent which he would have a hard time disproving.

Let's just get something straight here. I'm not defending anyone here. Maybe you think vigilante justice is a good idea. Maybe you think that severe chemical burns are a proportionate punishment for stealing a bit of diesel. I disagree.

You aren't hearing what I am saying. If he puts up a warning sign up, and the thieves pay no heed to the sign and assume it is diesel, he is in the clear.

I don't think vigilante justice is a good idea, or that such a punishment is at all proportionate. I believe I have the right to store any legal combination of chemicals and substances in any manner I see fit as long as it is in line with the relevant health and safety regulations, and if some idiot gombeen decides to ignore the warning signs and chance his arm, well, there's not much I can do about it.

MagicSean · 16-01-2012 08:19PM

Elsie Fierce Housewife wrote: »

You aren't hearing what I am saying. If he puts up a warning sign up, and the thieves pay no heed to the sign and assume it is diesel, he is in the clear.

It doesn't change his intention.

Elsie Fierce Housewife wrote: »

I don't think vigilante justice is a good idea, or that such a punishment is at all proportionate. I believe I have the right to store any legal combination of chemicals and substances in any manner I see fit as long as it is in line with the relevant health and safety regulations, and if some idiot gombeen decides to ignore the warning signs and chance his arm, well, there's not much I can do about it.

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.

Mimikyu · 16-01-2012 08:20PM

This post has been deleted.

Victor · 16-01-2012 08:40PM

Elsie Fierce Housewife wrote: »

You aren't hearing what I am saying. If he puts up a warning sign up, and the thieves pay no heed to the sign and assume it is diesel, he is in the clear.

But surely you have to realise that some solicitor will take a "no foal no fee" court case against anyone doing this, costing them serious amounts of money to defend it against a penniless plaintiff.

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 16-01-2012 08:41PM

MagicSean wrote: »

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 · 16-01-2012 08:49PM

Elsie Fierce Housewife wrote: »

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.

Hunchback · 16-01-2012 08:51PM

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 · 16-01-2012 08:56PM

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

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.

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 16-01-2012 09:00PM

MagicSean wrote: »

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 · 16-01-2012 09:03PM

Elsie Fierce Housewife wrote: »

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.

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 16-01-2012 09:22PM

MagicSean wrote: »

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 · 16-01-2012 09:27PM

Elsie Fierce Housewife wrote: »

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.

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 16-01-2012 11:33PM

MagicSean wrote: »

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 · 16-01-2012 11:34PM

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 · 16-01-2012 11:53PM

Elsie Fierce Housewife wrote: »

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.

Elsie Fierce Housewife wrote: »

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 · 16-01-2012 11:56PM

Pkiernan wrote: »

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?

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 17-01-2012 12:04AM

MagicSean wrote: »

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 · 17-01-2012 03:50AM

MagicSean wrote: »

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 · 17-01-2012 05:40AM

Pkiernan wrote: »

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.

Pkiernan wrote: »

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.

micropig · 19-01-2012 05:35AM

caustic soda heats up when added to water (exothermic reaction)-I'm not sure if you'll get the same heat adding it to diesel but suspect so - this will more than likely explode/combust

What are the ramifications of this??

Comments