As absolutely ridiculous (and illegal) as this advice is, if you find a way for inanimate objects to "detect that they have been stolen" I'd imagine you'll become wealthy enough that you won't need to worry about it.
I don't see anything illegal. It would be a device intended for my use, not the police's use, and I'm happy with the way it is constructed, therefore I purchase it and own it. If you steal it, you assume all liabilities thereof.
For all intents and purposes, booby traps are illegal 100% of the time regardless of the reason for their construction or the damage they cause. A booby trap that squirts water is as illegal as one that fires bullets, and one that misses someone is as illegal as one that hits someone (although hitting someone opens you up to other charges but unrelated to the booby trap).
This is a pretty good example of arguing from the way you feel like the law should be written rather than how it's actually written.
Just to be clear - this is not really up to judgment or interpretation, you are just completely wrong. So I wouldn't do anything based on this (very incorrect) reading of law.
I believe your summary of that Reddit comment is overly-broad: he admitted two of the videos involved a friend-of-a-friend volunteer that he was "unaware" had staged the theft. The thread then goes on to do some heavy extrapolating based on that thin evidence.
Booby traps are incredibly illegal, even if they're "non-injurious" by your personal definition.
This also applies to the classic tale where someone is stealing food from a communal fridge so an enterprising idiot puts laxatives in a sandwich. Congratulations! You've just committed a felony by poisoning someone.
Again, even if what you're saying is logically consistent, it is absolutely completely 100% wrong with regard to the law. A booby trap is still a booby trap even if you throw your hands up and say "that's not a booby trap."
"This shotgun attached to a string isn't a trap if it's in my possession all of the time. If you take it out of my possession forcefully and it blows your head off, that's your fault!"
Not who you're replying to but I've spent a lot of time reading about this particular aspect of law. I more or less happen to agree with you, but this is one of those examples where I think we've taken a lot of small steps in one direction and all of a sudden it looks crazy to an outside observer who doesn't understand the full context.
There's a concept of you "altering" your lunch such that it becomes dangerous or inedible but still leaving it out, e.g. in a fridge, where a reasonable person would assume that the lunch is edible. If you put rat poison in your lunch then throw it in the garbage, it's going to be harder to argue that you intentionally hurt that person who stole it. Even harder is if you put in a biohazard disposal bag.
There's the concept of the severity of the offense - poisoning someone is worse than stealing their lunch. Nobody is calling the cops because their lunch got stolen once.
There's intent. If you poison your lunch and put it back in the fridge, you're accepting there's a chance someone takes it. Can you prove someone intentionally took your lunch as opposed to accidentally taking it? You can accidentally take the wrong takeout container, even multiple times. You can't accidentally poison your own food.
I agree with you that it's a complex and subtle area of law. For more color on this, it's helpful to keep in mind the difference between criminal liability and civil liability. Also, the concepts of "reckless endangerment", "negligence" and "due care." Factors which can change what may be "okay" to "not okay" include private vs public property, intent and, the ever present catch-all, reasonableness.
The likelihood of getting in legal trouble, as well as the potential severity of the trouble, can vary widely depending on where, how, who and other surrounding context.
Do you really think you're the first person to think of this?
If you actually need a certain medication, and you absolutely must take it by putting it in your lunch, then I suppose you can feel free to explain that in a courtroom, but you should be reminded that perjury is a vey bad legal strategy and judges don't like to play games.
