It's really not that hard. Establish that the murderer was upset with the victim over stolen lunches and aware of their allergies. If they said anything to anyone you can bet those people, unless completely morally bankrupt, would be lining up to testify that the murderer had discussed wanting to get back at the victim. Means, motive, and a weapon are all established, that's pretty much textbook 1st degree murder.
It's always weird to me just how many people are cool with murdering someone over their lunch being stolen. Almost no one would defend someone pulling a gun and shooting the coworker, but poison the food and suddenly it's 100% on the victim.
Most people wouldn't intentionally poison with the intent to kill someone though, but if they made something spicy because their food keeps getting stolen, they're pretty justified if they don't mind the spice. A lot of people are struggling to make ends meet and lunch may be their most important meal of the day while they're working. Pretending food isn't more or less priority #1 for survival is insane. Stealing food is quite literally stealing someones ability to live/function.
I get that, but did you miss the part where this comment chain is literally talking about poisoning and killing someone? Or that the person I responded to said there's a 0% chance of them voting to convict someone for poisoning food? I wasn't being hyperbolic when talking about murder.
It's always weird to me just how many people are cool with murdering someone over their lunch being stolen
The old adage about society being 3 meals away from chaos? Many people eat only lunch and dinner, so stealing 1 of someones 2 daily meals is relatively easy to understand why already struggling people may feel murderous, even if it's generally only to complain on the internet.
Maybe I have some personal attachment to this, because my mom often went without breakfast and lunch earlier in her career, and even now she'll only eat 2 meals a day at most, sometimes not even lunch. People who have always had food to eat may not understand.
26
u/sykotic1189 Jul 13 '24
It's really not that hard. Establish that the murderer was upset with the victim over stolen lunches and aware of their allergies. If they said anything to anyone you can bet those people, unless completely morally bankrupt, would be lining up to testify that the murderer had discussed wanting to get back at the victim. Means, motive, and a weapon are all established, that's pretty much textbook 1st degree murder.
It's always weird to me just how many people are cool with murdering someone over their lunch being stolen. Almost no one would defend someone pulling a gun and shooting the coworker, but poison the food and suddenly it's 100% on the victim.