Who is responsible for stealing and eating and poisoning, and who is responsible for stealing and ea

1. If a person dies of poisoning, the owner of the food will never be able to escape responsibility.

2. But the specific responsibility depends on the situation. Minor is admonished, moderate is fined or half held responsible. Serious is to bear the main responsibility and pay for life.

3. The landlord only said that he ate secretly. I didn't say the specific situation (it can be roughly divided into: stealing food stalls, stealing kitchen semi-finished products, and stealing rat poison.

The responsibility for the rat poison stored in the store, the rat poison that poisons the rat in the kitchen, and the person who secretly eats the poison in the kitchen) is different in each case.

4. Deliberately putting poisonous materials to rectify habitual theft and anti-theft. The dead are the main responsibility. It even involves being planned**.

5. Stealing and eating rat poison stored in rat pharmacies is mismanagement, slight punishment, admonishment, criticism, and self-review.

6. Others are based on whether the owner knows that poison will kill people, whether there are certain precautions, semi-finished products or finished products, ......and so on.

Of course, it is the responsibility of stealing, after all, stealing is an illegal act, and you should be fully responsible for the consequences of it.

If the owner deliberately throws poison into the food to prevent thieves from stealing something, or out of deliberate revenge on the thief, then the owner will be liable, and it is also criminally responsible!

If the owner's food is poisoned by others, or the owner doesn't know that the drugs he bought are poisonous, then the owner is not responsible at all!

If there is no obvious sign or warning, and if it is placed within reach, if something happens, you still have to be responsible.

Where is the stolen thing? If the stolen object is in the owner's private enclosed space, the owner is not responsible. If it is in an open space outside and the owner does not have warning signs, the owner is responsible!

First of all, see if the thing is poisonous, and determine it through a forensic examination. Then, according to the legal procedure, whoever is responsible is responsible. Please refer to it!

One: As the victim, it should be the head of the household who was stolen, not the old lady's family who stole something.

Two: As a mediation policeman, in order to calm the matter, not only do not protect the rights and interests of the victim, but also let the victim bear the responsibility that should not be borne by himself.

Three: Let the head of the household eradicate the narcissus to avoid future troubles, and also let the head of the household put a sign on all the plants, write down the varieties, and whether they can be eaten. This is a serious violation of personal property, I plant some flowers and plants at home, and I also need to mark the varieties to avoid poisoning, what about kidding?

Is this based on that law, or does the person who says it represent the law?

You must be in charge of it.

I'm afraid no one can be responsible for this! Except for himself. It's a pity that he was greedy and died.

It depends. Let's make it clear that this poison is a lethal poison. 1.

If you don't know it's toxic, then you don't have any responsibility. 2.If you know that it is poisonous, but you have carefully stored the food to ensure that it is not taken and eaten under normal circumstances (such as in a safe, or if you live alone in a closet), then you are not criminally liable, but you may be liable for civil damages, depending on how well you keep it.

3.You know it's poisonous, but if you put it in a place where there is no storage (put it on the table and eaten by a child, or leave it at the door for the homeless to take it, etc.), you will be liable for negligent death. 4.

If the poison is carefully kept, depending on the storage situation, it depends on whether you will bear criminal liability (innocence or negligence causing death), but civil compensation cannot be avoided. 5.Poisoning that occurs by one's own hands and causes death because there is no effective storage measure (but subjectively does not want to harm others) is generally considered to have caused death by negligence, which is relatively more serious than the fourth case.

For example, when pesticides are sprayed in orchards, only a warning sign or even no warning is erected, and people are poisoned to death. 6.Poison under one's own hands, without effective protective measures, laissez-faire or even deliberately allowed others to eat it, obtained, intentional homide.

It is common to take revenge on the thief for spraying pesticides into the melon, and the difference from the fifth type is mainly due to the motive of poisoning.

Article 264 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China: Whoever steals public or private property, where the amount is relatively large or has multiple thefts, is to be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, short-term detention or controlled release, and/or where a fine is huge or there are other serious circumstances, a sentence of between three and ten years imprisonment is to be given, and where the amount of the fine is especially huge or there are other especially serious circumstances, a sentence of not less than 10 years imprisonment or life imprisonment is to be given, and where a fine or confiscation of property is to be given, life imprisonment or death is to be given. Concurrent confiscation of property: Article 271:Personnel of a company, enterprise, or other unit who take advantage of their position to illegally take possession of their unit's property for themselves shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than 5 years or short-term detention; where the amount involved is huge, the sentence is to be 5 years or more imprisonment, and property may be confiscated concurrently.

Where personnel engaged in public affairs in state-owned companies, enterprises, or other state-owned units, or personnel appointed by state-owned companies, enterprises, or other state-owned units to engage in public affairs in non-state-owned companies, enterprises, or other units, have the conduct described in the preceding paragraph, they are to be convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions of articles 382 and 383 of this Law.

Stealing someone else's food and poisoning is the responsibility of the person who poisoned it. Because the perpetrator subjectively deliberately poisoned the food and wanted to poison the person who wanted to eat the food to death, this is already suspected of intentional homicide; However, because the food was stolen and eaten, the person who wanted to be poisoned was not poisoned, but the person who stole the food was indirectly poisoned, which became the crime of indirect intentional homicide, and poisoning also required criminal liability and civil liability. According to the Criminal Law, if the crime of intentional homicide is constituted, the perpetrator will be sentenced to death, life imprisonment or fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years; where the circumstances are more minor, the sentence is between three and ten years imprisonment.

Legal basis: Article 232 of the Criminal Law, whoever intentionally kills a person shall be sentenced to death, life imprisonment or fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years; where the circumstances are more minor, the sentence is between three and ten years imprisonment.

The thief should be fully responsible, because the thief, as an adult, is obsessed with the theft even though he knows that it is illegal, and has caused direct economic losses to the residents, so he bears the consequences.

In this case, although the thief died of food poisoning from stealing from the residents, the owner of the house did not know that the thief would come to steal something, and the food poisoning was not intentional by the owner of the house, so the owner of the house was not responsible for the death of the thief.

Thieves also need to bear some responsibility, mainly because of why there is poisonous food here, which is already very worth investigating, and every situation is different.

This responsibility counts as a thief. And this thief is guilty of theft. All the blame should be borne by him. It's self-inflicted.

Thieves are also responsible, but how can food in normal residents' homes be poisonous? This needs to be investigated in depth.

This needs to determine whether the residents have a motive to poison the thief, to mention two cases: such a case appeared on the Internet, which caused heated discussions. Wang Laohan in Hebei made his own sausage, which was stolen three times by thieves, and Wang Laohan was very angry, so he mixed poison into the sausage.

And everyone may have guessed the result, this thief stole Wang Laohan's sausage again, and was poisoned and died after eating it. The cause of the thief's death was quickly ascertained, and Wang Laohan also confessed to it.

Obviously, Wang Laohan's practice has constituted the crime of intentional homicide. Although the thief will bear some responsibility in this case, Wang Laohan will definitely face a long prison sentence.

And many years ago, we had a similar case here. Two thieves gang up to steal a house, but they rummage through it and find nothing of value. However, the two thieves noticed that there was a lot of leftover food on the table, so they ate it.

At this time, one of the thieves found a jar of wine in a corner of the kitchen. So they took up wine and drank it. After they were full of wine and food, the two of them also took some worthless things in their hands before leaving.

But what was unexpected was that after the two returned home, they soon showed symptoms of poisoning. Fortunately, after timely rescue, he was out of danger. However, the medical expenses alone cost hundreds of thousands.

It turned out that the wine that the two drank was a kind of external medicinal wine brewed by this family, which had a certain toxicity, and it was normal to cause poisoning after drinking, and if the rescue was not timely, death would definitely occur. In this incident, the two thieves did not find the family responsible afterwards. To be honest, it's not that I didn't want to look for it, but I consulted the relevant lawyers, and the odds were not good, so I gave up.

Through these two cases, it can be seen that in this kind of situation, as long as the person who was stolen did not deliberately target the thief and wanted to poison the thief. In such a situation, the stolen family must not be responsible. Breaking into someone else's home is itself a crime and deserves legal sanctions.

Moreover, it is the right of others to do what the stolen family does in their own home, as long as the matter itself is not illegal or criminal, then the stolen family does not have to bear the consequences of other people's infringement without permission and causing their own damage.

Residents will not be sentenced, because thieves break into other people's homes without permission, and it is illegal to steal things, and they also steal and eat other people's things, and if they die, they are unlucky.

If a resident intentionally poisoned, he or she would be criminally liable and could go to jail, but not if he was intentionally poisoned, he would not need to go to jail.

No, because the thief's food is really his own choice, and it is not forced by the residents to let the thief eat it.

Stealing someone else's food and poisoning is the responsibility of the person who poisoned it. Because the perpetrator subjectively deliberately poisoned the food and wanted to poison the person who wanted to eat the food, this is already suspected of intentional homicide; However, because the food was stolen and eaten, the person who wanted to be poisoned was not poisoned, but the person who stole the food was indirectly poisoned, which constituted the crime of indirect intentional homicide, and poisoning also required criminal liability and civil liability. According to the provisions of the Criminal Law, if the crime of intentional homicide is constituted, the perpetrator shall be sentenced to death, life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than 10 years; where the circumstances are more minor, the sentence is between three and ten years imprisonment.

1. What is the crime of poisoning?

Poisoning may constitute the offence of distributing dangerous substances. As long as the perpetrator has intentionally released poisonous, radioactive, infectious disease pathogens, or other substances, and it is sufficient to threaten the personal and property safety of the majority of people who are not specifically indicated, and no serious consequences are required, it constitutes a crime and shall be filed and prosecuted. Poisoning may also constitute intentional homicide.

The crime of intentional homicide is constituted, and criminal responsibility shall be pursued in accordance with law.

2. Classification of socks poisoning accidents in food.

According to the number of poisoning people, the number of deaths, the place of occurrence and the degree of harm of food poisoning, food poisoning incidents are divided into three levels from severe to light: major (grade), large (grade) and general (grade). Major (grade) food poisoning incidents: more than 100 people have been poisoned at a time and there have been fatal cases; There were more than 10 deaths from food stool poisoning.

Article 232 of the Criminal Law provides that whoever intentionally kills a person shall be sentenced to death, life imprisonment or fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years; where the circumstances are more minor, the sentence is between three and ten years imprisonment.