system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: One who trespasses onto someone's clearly marked property/steals food from a communal fridge/etc, should forfeit the right to sue or press charges for getting hurt/falling prey to a non-lethal trap.

To clarify, scenarios such as:

1) A person ignoring "no trespassing" signage and fencing/etc and enters said land and gets hurt (such as stepping on a rake or other sharp tool) or triggering a non-lethal trap.

2) Someone willfully and knowingly stealing food from a communal refrigerator (like in an office, or a dwelling full of roommates) and happens to eat something with laxatives or something they may be allergic to.

3) Or a theif falls through a skylight of his target's home and gets cut on a kitchen knife upon landing.

In cases like these, the person committing the initial crime has sometimes sued and/or pressed charges against the property or food owner.

This is just wrong. I honestly believe when a person violates another, they should loose the right to sue or press charges should they get hurt while committing the crime.

To be clear, however, I'm not really advocating the use of booby traps or any deadly automated apparatus, or in the case of food, blatantly poisoning, but rather just that one shouldn't be able to use the system against someone they were actively and knowingly violating.
gpt
You can't "forfeit the right to press charges" against someone. Charges aren't pressed by the victim of a crime; they are pressed the the district attorney with the appropriate jurisdiction.

It is one thing to say that criminals shouldn't be allowed to sue their victims (thus enriching themselves as a result of their crime) for being harmed by a trap while committing a crime.  It is another thing to say that the district attorney (who represents the people, not the victim) should not be allowed to prosecute a criminal solely because their victim also committed a crime.  Why should justice be limited in this way?