Boy gets pissy (literally) after bully steals his Mtn. Dew

[Rageaholic]

There is a big difference between boobytrapping something you keep on yourself versus boobytrapping something you put in a company fridge.

The bully absoultely had to force the item away from Todd to drink it.
Putting in the fridge would be illegal, because people can accidently take it at that point. By confusing it with their own. There is a subtle difference between the two.

This

It may have been a boobytrap, but the only reason someone would fall for it is by taking it themselves which they are not entitled too. Sure, he knew the bully would take it, but had he not taken it in the first place this wouldn't have been an issue. The only reason the kids act was wrong was based on the bullies action which were wrong. If the bully can get away with taking his stuff, that kid should get away with his piss trap.

[crashhelmet]

Yes it is.

Through Google, I found the Federal Anti-Tampering Act

He consumed the soda, so he technically did not tamper with the product itself. The refilled bottle wasn't sold or placed into inventory to be sold, so it was not tampering in that aspect either.

I don't see how or where this qualifies as tampering.

[Greenday]

I don't see how or where this qualifies as tampering.

I don't see how putting pis in a Mt. Dew bottle that you know someone is going to take ISN'T tampering.

[crashhelmet]

I don't see how putting pis in a Mt. Dew bottle that you know someone is going to take ISN'T tampering.

Because it wasn't tampering. There was nothing to tamper.

If you want to take the side of the booby trapping argument, consider this.

If someone breaks into a house and gets attacked by the owner's dog(s), is it illegal if there was no "Beware of Dog(s)" sign?

Am I forced to wear a sign at all times that states I have almost 30 years of martial arts training in case some jack ass tries to mug me?

Just because he didn't give fair warning doesn't make it wrong or illegal.

[Plaidman]

Besides, plenty of defenses. He really had to go and couldn't go anywhere as he was in the middle of a store or something, so he peed in a cup. Or he likes the taste. Or he is having an experement.

Then again, I guess the bully can do the same. He was having an emergency insulin shock and needed sugar asap. He confused Todd's bag with his own and just grabbed a mountain dew that he too, always brought in his backback that Todd just happened to carry.

[Greenday]

Besides, plenty of defenses. He really had to go and couldn't go anywhere as he was in the middle of a store or something, so he peed in a cup. Or he likes the taste. Or he is having an experement.

As much as I believe the majority of people in the US are dumb, most aren't that dumb and would be pretty pissed at someone blatently trying to BS them like that.

[KnitShoni]

As much as I believe the majority of people in the US are dumb, most aren't that dumb and would be pretty pissed at someone blatently trying to BS them like that.

At the same time, most people also aren't dumb enough to not realize that if the boy hadn't had to deal with bullying and theft, he most likely would not have thought to piss in the bottle in the first place.

[Plaidman]

At the same time, most people also aren't dumb enough to not realize that if the boy hadn't had to deal with bullying and theft, he most likely would not have thought to piss in the bottle in the first place.

In this day and age, people must protect the bullies is the problem. It's not their fault they bully. We must allow them to bully to /get/ it out of their system or any other bullshit excuse. Never the bullies fault. Always punish the victims if they try to stand up to said bully is the status quo that cannot be destroyed.

[DrFaroohk]

I'm sure there's some law on it somewhere or other, but I think the main point here is was it really wrong to spike the drink?

Personally I think no it wasn't.

I apply the following logic by retracing the steps of what happened.

1) Todd peed in a mountain dew bottle. Is that wrong? No. As for his intent...well, duh, he meant for it to be drank by the bully. But any time I've used intent for an argument I'm always told it doesn't matter, so I apply that same argument here and say it does not matter whether Todd meant for Brian to drink it, gargle it, or wash his pubes in it.

2) Brian stole the mountain dew bottle and drank it. Was it wrong of Brian to do this? Yes it was.

Therefore, Brian is the one who committed the "wrong" act. Todd did nothing wrong. He just peed in a bottle and left it in his backpack.

Nothing wrong there, regardless of what the intent was.

Brian was the one who did the wrong thing. He STOLE it. Stealing is wrong. If Brian's wrong was not committed, then all would be well. The pee would be sitting harmlessly in the bottle.

To me it's pretty open and shut. Without Brian's wrong, none of this would have happened. So it can be easily traced back to Brian and one can say it's his own damn fault.

[Ginger Tea]

tampering with food realy becomes an issue at the source, if someone working at a mountain dew bottling plant peed in a bottle and said bottle ended up in a store, thats tampering

using a montain dew bottle to store another liquid is just reusing a bottle
It's not smart to put bleach in a soda bottle cos you needed to pour some bleech into a bottle after borrowing some from next door, especially if you have children. but if YOU know its bleach and no one else lives in the house, or they all know its bleach, then no harm, its bleech in a pepsi bottle.

if I chose to and still had a cupboard in the kitchen, I could put white washing powder in a jar labled sugar, I know its washing powder, I know the jar said sugar when I filled it, but frankly I dont give a damn if someone takes it and puts it in their coffee, tea or corn flakes, we don't have a shared food policy at my house, we don't cook group meals, so if you run out of sugar go to the shops.

me putting sugar looking washing powder in a jar labled sugar and putting it in my cupboard is NOT tampering with food, its tampering if I buy sugar and find salt or persil or anthrax instead of sugar.

why do I have a bottle of urine in a mountain dew bottle in my back pack?
well I'm doing a science test on urine and i needed a bottle to pee into the night before and take with me to class

[Mytical]

Honestly, even if the intent was to have the Bully drink it, it is not like he got it out and handed it to the bully and said "Here thought I would save you the trouble of stealing it from me." or something. Is it disgusting, yes. Does that matter, not a bit.

If you get hurt, injured, etc in the act of committing a crime..cry me a river. Not going to feel one shred of pity for you. The laws about such things are getting to be a joke, blaming victims instead of the actual criminals. Person breaks in your house..and you shoot/they slip and fall/ etc YOU are a criminal? Oh HECK no. Is it a law, yep. Is it RIGHT? NO. Being a law does not = always right.

At one time it was a LAW that you could own somebody..doesn't mean it was right then, nor is it right now.

At one time it was a LAW that the local Duke/Baron/etc could basically rape a bride. Was it right because it was a law? Heck no.

Just because there is a law, doesn't mean it is always RIGHT.

So even though this was fake, and it never happened, if it had the kid had every right to defend himself. His methods were gross, but other then that, not one shred of pity for the bully from me.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I remember reading about someone spiking a sandwich with catfood on CS.com cuz someone kept stealing his food from the work fridge. I agreed then, and still do, that if someone steals it, then it's their tough luck.

Same goes if I make myself a peanut butter sandwich and put it in the company fridge, and Ms Thief who has severe peanut allergy steals it and eats it. If the thief has allergies and steals someone's food, then tough shit.

[Arcade Man D]

I remember reading about someone spiking a sandwich with catfood on CS.com cuz someone kept stealing his food from the work fridge. I agreed then, and still do, that if someone steals it, then it's their tough luck.

Same goes if I make myself a peanut butter sandwich and put it in the company fridge, and Ms Thief who has severe peanut allergy steals it and eats it. If the thief has allergies and steals someone's food, then tough shit.

Your two examples aren't good analogies, though. Catfood is perfectly fine to eat (even if it may not taste great), and peanut butter is absolutely meant for human consumption. Urine is not, especially not human urine.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I wasn't making analogies, I was just commenting. I believe I said in an earlier post that I did not agree with the urine bit, if you check back.

I said that I did a similar thing in school, cept my liquid of choice was vinegar.

[Canarr]

At one time it was a LAW that the local Duke/Baron/etc could basically rape a bride. Was it right because it was a law? Heck no.

Just because there is a law, doesn't mean it is always RIGHT.

Actually, the existence of ius primae noctis is unproven; at least in Scotland and England, no such law has been found, to my knowledge.

The practice seems to have been in existence in some parts of today's France and Spain from the 1300s to the 1500s, but more as one of several instances of the local lord simply doing what he wanted, because he could, rather than a true law. Also, it is unclear how prevalent this actually was; one theory among historians suggests that its existence was merely a propaganda tool wielded during the French Revolution. "Let them eat cake!", so to speak.

But, you are correct in on thing: there's a difference between lawful and right. And while this fictional character was certainly right in doing something against the bully stealing his drink, he certainly wasn't lawful in it - and thus, deserves punishment.