[Drizzt]

Booby-trapped weapon shoots alleged burglar
Date: 9/16/2005 12:44:40 PM
By: Jody Sliger
Staff Writer
jody@spartaexpositor.com


A Sparta man was injured when he allegedly entered a home where a shotgun had been rigged to fire if the door was opened.

At approximately 4:37 p.m., Sept. 12, 2005, Deputy Darrin Gongaware was dispatched to Cummings Chapel Road where he encountered Greg Hutchings, 35, of Sparta.

Hutchings was lying in the front yard with ‘most of his left forearm missing,’ according to the report.

The officer proceeded to give first aid to Hutchings and asked him what had happened.

According to the report, Hutchings told Gongaware he was at the home of Neal Rodgers and the door was open, and he went in. Hutchings then said he was shot by a gun behind the door.

Gongaware’s report said it appeared Hutchings was suffering from a shotgun blast, with some of the shot in his stomach and arm.

While Hutchings was being transported to the hospital, Isom, Gongaware and Deputy Craig Wilson began searching for the crime scene to begin their investigation.

After officers checked a few houses in the area, they discovered the scene at a home on Cummings Chapel Road owned by Robert Austin and not at the home of Neal Rodgers.

Austin was contacted. When he arrived at the scene, Austin showed the officers how he had set up the gun.

Hutchings was transported to Erlanger with non-life threatening injuries.

“We collected the shotgun and string for evidence,” said Detective Chris Isom.

The incident is still under investigation by White County Sheriff Department.

http://www.spartaexpositor.com/newsdetail.asp?ArticleID=1208

right or wrong, I'm afraid Mr. Austin is going to be in for a bit of legal trouble...

[poe_9999]

to bad the homeowner will spend more time in jail that the thief...

[cracked butt]

to bad the homeowner will spend more time in jail that the thief...

Yup.
A guy in Northern wisconsin did the exact same thing 5 or 6 years ago. He had a shed on some land far off the paved road and had a 2 or 3 ATVs stolen from his locked shed in seperate incidents. The police wouldn't/couldn't do anything about it, so he rigged up a shotgun to go off if the locked door was broken into. Probably the only judgement error the owner made was that he set the shotgun to hit at knee level instead of much higher. The perp was found still alive by a passing motorist after he dragged himself out to a paved road. :mad:

Aim high. Shoot. Shovel. Shut up.

[cracked butt]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/dec99/burg15121499a.asp
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/apr99/990720boobytrapinshedwounds.asp

[HankB]

Too bad the law favors the criminals in cases like these . . . a gun is noisy and it's hard to establish plausible deniability when a burglar is perforated. Better to leave something like a bottle of booze in your unoccupied shed or cabin wiped clean of your fingerprints and laced with something "special" . . . if you're inclined to do that sort of thing. (Disclaimer: This is an observation, not a recommendation.)

[molonlabe]

This is sort of nutty behavior. First he wasn't home so what if the house caught fire and a firefighter gets wasted because of this boneheads action.
Where in "Identify your target" or
"Be sure of what is behind your target" fit into this whole scheme?????


Am I the only one who finds this guy a little nuts...

[cracked butt]

Am I the only one who finds this guy a little nuts...

I would call it a lot nuts for the reasons you mentioned.

[cobb]

Quote:
Am I the only one who finds this guy a little nuts...


I would call it a lot nuts for the reasons you mentioned.

I am in no way sorry for a person that gets injured while involved in an illegal activity. But rigging a booby trap of this sort in your home is even morally wrong, not to mention stupid.

[HighVelocity]

Is it illegal to set a trap designed to capture, not injure an intruder?

A snare or tiger cage type trap?

[Shovelhead]

to bad the homeowner will spend more time in jail that the thief...

Depending on the Bad Guy's attorney, the Bad Guy might wind up owning the "Good" guy's house. :scrutiny:

[beerslurpy]

If the guy hadnt been burgling the guys house, how would he have gotten shot?

[The Real Hawkeye]

These devices are known in the law as "springtraps." They have been considered tortious and criminal per se for a long time in this country. Seems, however, that they should be considered on a case by case basis, as I would like to see an end to awarding burglars money at the expense of their intended victims when they get shot up in these things, though I think a fireman responding to a call should be able to sue big time, and in that case criminal charges would not be objected to by me.

[molonlabe]

Let me clarify my stance on this."There is no brain behind this device" Thats the rub. Now I know that in some cases that does not make much difference but a brainless device will waste a fireman, a police officer doing a welfare check, your wife, your kid and yourself if you forget about it.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Let me clarify my stance on this."There is no brain behind this device" Thats the rub. Now I know that in some cases that does not make much difference but a brainless device will waste a fireman, a police officer doing a welfare check, your wife, your kid and yourself if you forget about it.I agree that it is foolish. I would just like to prevent real burglars from winning big awards in court because they got hurt by one of these thing in the act of attempting to burglarize the house. In the case of anyone else innocently being injured by it, sure, sue the guy's pants off. It's foolish to set one of those traps. If an innocent person is hurt or killed, charge him as if he held the gun and did the deed personally. Just prevent the bad guy from collecting an award from the stupid guy.

[beerslurpy]

Until the US military stops using mechanical ambushes (land mines and similar), why should the civilian population be held to a higher standard?

[molonlabe]

Eh.... Mines are used in warfare... So people should be at war with each other? Sorry I see a difference.

[beerslurpy]

If a booby-trap harms an innocent person, the owner should be held responsible as if he had pulled the trigger himself.

Applying that same principle to an intruder whom I could lawfully kill, I dont see how it suddenly becomes unlawful when you dont personally pull the trigger.

edit:
In Florida, effective October 1, there is
(a) no duty to retreat from a violent intruder in ones home nor within the curtilage of ones home
(b) a presumption of violent intent when an intruder enters a home

So when someone intrudes into your domicile, you may legally shoot them dead with no warning and not further justification beyond their prescence. I dont see how relying on an automated device to make this determination changes the underlying principles beyond the fact that you have to take responsibility for any unlawful activity your device engages in.

[Kurush]

If a booby-trap harms an innocent person, the owner should be held responsible as if he had pulled the trigger himself.

Applying that same principle to an intruder whom I could lawfully kill, I dont see how it suddenly becomes unlawful when you dont personally pull the trigger.

Because you're basically setting up a jury-rigged antipersonnel mine. The mine is illegal per se. The FL statute doesn't apply because the mine isn't defending anything, it's just killing whatever sets it off. If someone sets one of these up and it kills an emergency responder they should expect to be sentenced to death.

[beerslurpy]

What business would an emergency responder have on my property if I didnt summon him there myself? I'm smelling 4th amendment violations here.

[Car Knocker]

So if you are away from home and a neighbor sees smoke coming from your house and calls the fire dept, then the FD should just watch from the road as your house burns down because you aren't there to invite them onto your property? Is that what you're saying?

[molonlabe]

I think if you read the account he was not even at the residence. But bottom line he will do more time than the burglar.

[beerslurpy]

That is an interesting question. I suppose if you had erected physical barriers around your property (to prevent people from accidentally triggering your mines) and posted warnings, that the fire department would have let it burn or risk being maimed or killed. When one erects sturdy fences around ones property (as the wealthy often do), how does the fire department gain entry without permission of the owner? Oh right, they dont.

The fire department doesnt wander onto military bases or the estates of the wealthy without permission, so I dont see why the domiciles of private individuals should deserve any less legal protection.

Surely you dont propose that the sovereignty of the wealthy and powerful over their property has some different legal basis than that of an ordinary private citizen? Or does might make right where property rights are concerned?

[The Real Hawkeye]

Hypothetical: Sword wielding raving lunatic murderer breaks down front door of a residential house. Father tells his wife and kids to get into the basement, and then he enters. At the basement door is a shotgun that he always keeps loaded. He quickly rigs it to go off at the door with a piece of string and some tape the moment the door is forced open, then he herds wife and kids to the back exist of the basement. Before they can get the lock to that back basement door open, they hear crash (the door breaking in) and then boom, the gun going off. Father looks back and sees the lunatic sprawled out on the basement steps covered in blood, dead as a door nail. Any crime committed by dad? Should there be?

[GunGoBoom]

BS, I like the way you think - I'm gonna have to ponder that one a bit.

[Rockstar]

Hawkeye: Yeah, there was a crime commtted in your hypotheical: Father with I.Q. lower than field mouse's permitted to live under same roof with wife and kids.

[The Real Hawkeye]

I didn't say he was smart. You and I would have stood by the door with the scatter gun and blasted him when he smashed it. The question was did he commit a crime?

[Car Knocker]

BS, not all "wealthy" folks have sturdy walls or fences around their property and some "less-than-wealthy" folks do have sturdy fences or walls or ditches around their property. Accessibility is not necessarily a factor of wealth. If the FD is able to reasonably access the property, they will fight the fire. If they can't, it will likely burn down.

In SLC, where I live, homes in the poorer parts of town will often have barred windows and doors (and sometimes porches) while homes of the more affluent, on South Temple, for example, are free of such bars and are readily accessible from the street. In my example of a neighbor calling in an alarm, the homes of the affluent would more likely be saved because of the accessibility than those prison-like fortresses in the poorest sections of town.

It's not a matter of sovereignty of the wealthy but a matter of reasonable access.

[beerslurpy]

So it is just a matter of might making right. If you can physically frustrate the authorities from accessing your property and back it up with a convincing threat of successful litigation, you will be left alone.

[etex]

I am pretty sure this shotgun booby trap would be illegal in Texas.

[Double Naught Spy]

That is an interesting question. I suppose if you had erected physical barriers around your property (to prevent people from accidentally triggering your mines) and posted warnings, that the fire department would have let it burn or risk being maimed or killed. When one erects sturdy fences around ones property (as the wealthy often do), how does the fire department gain entry without permission of the owner? Oh right, they dont.

The fire department doesnt wander onto military bases or the estates of the wealthy without permission, so I dont see why the domiciles of private individuals should deserve any less legal protection.

Wow, maybe the laws in Florida are different than everywhere else, but police and fire can enter domiciles without the permission of the owner or tenant when it is believed that there is an emergency in progress or that the owner or tenant is not able to respond to grant permission, but they do it in a bunch of other states. In fact, the fire departments around the country do this on a regular basis when domiciles are on fire, businesses too. They make special efforts to try to locate potential victims of the fire if it is believed that somebody may be in the burning domicile in question.

No, they usually don't go on military bases without permission, but that is because military bases often have their own fire fighters and police for that matter.

4th Amendment violation? I don't know of any cases where a house was on fire and the fire department gained entry without permission of the owner where the owner charged that his/her 4th amendent rights were violated. If it has happened, I rather doubt it held up in court.

[The Real Hawkeye]

When firemen break residential doors down it is not to search and sieze anything, reasonably or otherwise. The Fourth doesn't apply. The only legal question becomes, was their action reasonable under the circumstances?

[artherd]

Until the US military stops using mechanical ambushes (land mines and similar), why should the civilian population be held to a higher standard?

Even the US military no longer uses land mines.


No, set up a camera. Set up a door that locks in one direction, set it all up to catch the guy and hold him for the police.

Much better than blowing off the head of a firefighter who just jumped in your window to save your 7-year old daughter.

[Gunpacker]

In Florida you can use legally use deadly force only "when you are in fear of death or great bodily harm to yourself or another person". That would be in your home or in the outside world. You cannot use such force to protect property. A device triggered as described would not be defending life or body, just property. Now if you are home, you can assume that someone entering is liable to be a threat to life or body, since you can be killed by bare hands. I think you would find yourself in trouble anywhere with a deadly trap as described.

[Andrew Rothman]

Even the US military no longer uses land mines.

I must have missed the press release.

[Marnoot]

Even the US military no longer uses land mines. The US military no longer uses conventional mines, IIRC, but they are considering using mines that "expire" after a certain amount of time, so that they aren't a hazard after combat is over. As well as networked/monitored minefields: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,77010,00.html

[rangerbill]

Update: looks like the homeowner isn't going to be charged with anything, I say he's lucky. The grand jury seems to have shown some common sense in this case. The scumbag deserved what he got. Maybe it will be a lesson to all his buddies. But of course, this does not rule out the possibility of a civil suit. This is the way they all ought to turn out in the civil case snuffed also.

Just thought y'all would like to know!

http://www.1025wowcountry.com/news.html

No criminal charges in incident involving booby-trapped gun in White County Andy Vaughn 2-09-06

According to the Sparta Expositor, the White County Grand Jury will not seek criminal charges against a homeowner after a booby-trapped gun injured an alleged burglar. A “no true bill” was issued for Robert Austin during the January session of White County Criminal Court after Gregory Hutchings, 36, of Sparta , was injured during an alleged break-in at a house owned by Austin in September of 2005. Austin had been charged with reckless endangerment with a weapon. Hutchings, however, was indicted on two counts of aggravated burglary and one count of theft over $500 during criminal court.

[beerslurpy]

Neato.

I have been reading caselaw about torts and I have a better appreciation of why blasting people with a boobytrap is considered tortious. That being said, the legislature can legalize the use of force to protect property.

Also, I beleive that if warning signs are posted, the use of booby traps or vicious dogs is allowed. Of course, the suprise is 9/10ths of the utility and fun of a boobytrap.

And yes, the US Military uses land mines heavily to this very day. Try walking to north korea if you dont beleive me.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

He was incredibly lucky to get off on the criminal charges. However, he will almost certainly lose his house and everything in it to the guy who got shot (or more accurately the personal injury lawyer who takes his case on contingency).

[beerslurpy]

He was incredibly lucky to get off on the criminal charges. However, he will almost certainly lose his house and everything in it to the guy who got shot (or more accurately the personal injury lawyer who takes his case on contingency).
Not if TN protects homesteads like Florida does. OJ Simpson kept his NFL pension and FL house after the civil suit (the pension was protected by CA law and the FL house by FL law). He technically owes craploads of money, but none of his income or possessions can currently be touched.

I admit that it will be hard to get out of liability for the blast as a matter of law, but the jury might see otherwise, as it did in the criminal case.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Not if TN protects homesteads like Florida does.

Yes, I didn't think about that. He will certainly be declaring bankruptcy in the future though and anything that isn't judgment proof will belong to some lawyer. Frankly, he would have probably been better off opening up his house and letting the guy take whatever he wanted.

[answerguy]

The fire department doesnt wander onto the estates of the wealthy without permission,



Says who? If the Fire Dept comes along a home with barred windows in a poor neighborhood they would use force to enter the home. Same thing with a gated home in a rich neighborhood, bust the gate down, do their job.

[carebear]

The father and family in the basement example has immediate defense of a person, however remotely executed to justify it.

Same basement, same shotgun, no people in basement? Illegal (well, except in front of this guy's GJ) boobytrap.

[BigRobT]

I must have missed the press release.

Andrew, I thought I read it that way myself. I had to go back and re-read it. :what:

[tellner]

Let's give reality a chance, guys.

You are only ethically and legally justified in using deadly force to protect yourself or another innocent from "immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or serious bodily injury." A booby trap just doesn't qualify. You aren't there. You aren't in immediate danger. What's worse, there's no human agency here. It happens automatically, so there's no chance to abort if it turns out that the person isn't about to hurt you. And to top it off, it's premeditated. You didn't find yourself in a bad situation and have to shoot someone to extract yourself from it. You planned your killing in advance.

Anyone who pulls stupid stunts like this deserves the premeditated murder conviction that will probably follow. Heck, I'll hold the DA's coat, because attitudes like this are what give responsible gun owners the lousy name we have in the general population. I love my rights too much to have them taken away by murderers like the booby-trap advocates.

The guys who say "Well, the Army does it" need to start exercising that stiff lump of lard at the top of their spines. The Army also destroys cities, kills civilians, uses area-effect weapons, and generally "breaks things and kills people". They also hunt down and kill people who might pose a future danger to them. That's all their job, not yours. You aren't under military discipline. You aren't engaging troops on the battlefield. You're a civilian who has a right to self defense. Unless you're posting from Liberia, in which case you have my deepest sympathy, you aren't in a war. The law will take a dim view if you go blowing up apartment buildings because you have information that a burglar might live there. That's what we have peace officers and penitentiaries for. Do felony-stupid things and you will find out what they are like from the business end.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[lbmii]

Every so often you hear about someone rigging a door knob or window screen to high voltage wires.

[Meplat]

Too bad the law favors the criminals in cases like these . . . a gun is noisy and it's hard to establish plausible deniability when a burglar is perforated. Better to leave something like a bottle of booze in your unoccupied shed or cabin wiped clean of your fingerprints and laced with something "special" . . . if you're inclined to do that sort of thing. (Disclaimer: This is an observation, not a recommendation.)

The main concern with "set guns" (way back when you used to be able to buy them from the Sears Roebuck catalogue) is the danger to emergency personel who might have to respond to a call to your home when you're not there. A very valid concern. Firemen oftimes have to enter a burning building in order to save it or buildings around it from burning to the ground, and to check and make sure no one is inside and trapped. Me, I want my guns under my direct control. Reason I'd rather have a "yip-yap" around to warn me than a Rottie trained to attack an unknown on sight. If it comes down to decision time, I want to be the one who makes that decision.

Just good common sense.

[Meplat]

Until the US military stops using mechanical ambushes (land mines and similar), why should the civilian population be held to a higher standard?


Ummm....the enemy in an armed confrontation rarely sends firemen to save your valuables or pull your ass out of the fire before it reaches safe handling tempretures for food prep?

The enemy seldom sends police out to check on you because concerned family members aren't able to get in touch with you? (Hey - you ain't gotta be an old fart...I had my first heart attack at 37)

The enemy is seldom a family member who has your key and permission to enter your home and hasn't figured out you're stupid enough to place a set-gun?

Just a few reasons I can think of off the top of my head.

[Meplat]

What business would an emergency responder have on my property if I didnt summon him there myself? I'm smelling 4th amendment violations here.

A concerned family member who knows you should be home but can't get you to respond. (see earlier post RE: heart attacks - just one way to fall ill in your own home and be unable to summon help).

Hell, it doesn't even have to be an emergency responder. If my next door neighbor's wife called knowing that her husband had been working earlier with some power tools, and couldn't get ahold of him and was worried, I'd check on him, as he would on me.

[Mad Chemist]

This is sort of nutty behavior. First he wasn't home so what if the house caught fire and a firefighter gets wasted because of this boneheads action.
Where in "Identify your target" or
"Be sure of what is behind your target" fit into this whole scheme?????


Am I the only one who finds this guy a little nuts...

+1 I fight wildfires during the summer. I don't want to have worry about whether or not all the shacks and trailers in the woods are friggin' booby trapped.:banghead:
This is stupid! Where are the criteria for self defense?
This guy is a jerk and I hope he gets prosecuted. There are better ways to secure a building than rigging shotguns on the damn doors.

[Byron Quick]

You are only ethically and legally justified in using deadly force to protect yourself or another innocent from "immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or serious bodily injury."

I won't get into the ethics of the situation.

However, your statement as to the legal justification of the use of deadly force to protect yourself or another innocent from 'immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or serious bodily injury' is simply not true in all states in the Union.

Take Georgia, for example. There's a law authorizing the use of deadly force whenever a home is forcibly entered by a non-resident of that home. There is no requirement in the law that the invader be armed nor even viewed as a threat of any degree. The only requirement for the legal use of deadly force is the belief that it is necessary to prevent the commission of another felony. The type of felony is not specified. See the second and third clauses. Note the complete absence of any threat requirement.
Georgia Code
16-3-23

A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other´s unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;

(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or

(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
__________________
Also, thieves in the night can be legally engaged in Texas. I'm not up on the technicalities of the statute but it does not operate under the restrictions you cite as universal law in the US.

You've fallen into a quite common pitfall, i.e, believing that the laws and principles of your state are the same in all states in the Union. Sorry, Oregon law is irrelevant in Georgia. Georgia law is irrelevant in Oregon.

[taliv]

sounds like Grand Jury Nullification to me...

[Rockstar]

Until the US military stops using mechanical ambushes (land mines and similar), why should the civilian population be held to a higher standard?

How the heck did you ever get by the "logical reasoning" portion of the LSAT? What's wrong with you? You really think that setting a mantrap in a private residence or business is analogous to the laying of mines, etc., by the military?

[antarti]

sounds like Grand Jury Nullification to me...

I agree, and I am pleased to see it.

[Art Eatman]

The gentlest and politest term for somebody who sets up a potentially lethal boobytrap is "foolish".

Basically, our legal system does not provide for a person to serve as jury, judge and executioner, absent direct threat to one's life. Further, under the law, there is no death penalty for home burglary.

While the issues of legitimate entry by a fireman, etc., are real, they are irrelevant. Put it this way: "There are some things you do not do." Setting up a mindless system to kill or damage a person is one of them.

Art

[colt.45]

if you do something like that do it with something like an automatic paintball gun, or a high deciple shotgun round pointed up, or some other noise maker od riot control device. it'l scare em off and they probably wont report it.

"yes i was robbing someones house and..."

[beerslurpy]

How the heck did you ever get by the "logical reasoning" portion of the LSAT? What's wrong with you? You really think that setting a mantrap in a private residence or business is analogous to the laying of mines, etc., by the military?

Do they function in some different way or serve a different purpose?

If I own property and wish to deny access to all people, why shouldnt I be allowed to set up deathtraps on that property? If I can afford a castle, why cant I set up spike pits and choppy blades like Prince of Persia?

As long as I take reasonable precautions to prevent people from accidentally wandering onto my property and triggering the traps, it should be no ones business whatsoever. If you climb/tunnel/chop through a barbed wire fence with signs saying "DANGER! MINES!" and "DANGER! INTRUDERS WILL BE SHOT!" should it really come as a surprise that the signs are true and the fence was for your protection? There is already caselaw that provides a defense against negligent tort for vicious dogs if there were fences and signs. I would think landmines would be similarly treated, no?

And technically burglarly doesnt carry the death penalty, but there are a lot of dead burglars in FL who would say that isnt quite the whole picture.

[beerslurpy]

Since you doubt my logical reasoning abilities, lets look at this from another angle.

Lets say that as a resident of unincorporated Swamp County, Florida I build a house in a swamp. The grounds are swampy and full of vicious alligators that will attack humans. I cannot move the alligators because of an environmental law.

To protect myself from liability, I build a fence around my property and post signs to warn passersby and mailmen of the alligator hazard on my property. If someone jumps over the fence and gets eaten, I think I would not be liable in most states.

Now substitute a man-made pond designed with the intent of luring naturally occuring alligators.

The question:
Legally speaking, what is the difference between liability for a hazard I cannot correct and a hazard that I choose not to correct? Both situations require that I either warn or protect the public from the hazard, since it is on my property. I havent seen that there is a difference between hazards made by me, made by people other than me or made by nature.

I think there are statuatory differences based upon types of hazards, but I'm arguing there shouldnt be a distinction made between vicious guard dogs and mechanical ambushes.

[beerslurpy]

Here is my utopian vision:
http://i1.tinypic.com/nn2t04.jpg

[Firethorn]

Here is my utopian vision:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the burglar in your vision already past the traps?

As for the issue at hand, I'd have prefered to find the trap guy innocent of assault with a deadly/attempted murder, because I like the idea of crooks assuming all responsability for their own well-being during criminal acts, not being protected by liability laws and such. The old 'if the security guard shoots at a bank robber and hits a customer, it's treated as though the bank robbers did it' thing versus 'I fell through your sky-light as I was breaking in, so you owe me money'. Heck, I even heard one where the guy sued after cutting his hand on glass he broke while trying to break in. :fire:

As an ancillery for this, the guy would also be protected from being sued by the thief. Good point: The crook isn't going to be rewarded for criminal activity.

However, I would convict him of setting a potentially lethal booby trap.

[Art Eatman]

beerslurpy, I really do believe my post just before your most recent posts already answered your point.

Whether I'm right or wrong, there is one thing for sure: If you ever tried to implement your ideas, you'd wind up bankrupt and behind bars.

Art

[beerslurpy]

But vicious dog laws allow exactly the thing you claimed wasnt allowable in society.

And the issue of a hazard on ones property being remedied by warning signs or fences is another legal problem with your blanket ban on harming people on your property.

At some point, the liability shifts back to the idiot trespassing.

[carebear]

beeerslurpy,

Maybe the distinction on guard dogs is that they are first "dogs" which are legal to own, however bad tempered, if properly restrained?

They aren't there to deliberately kill/maim an intruder. First and foremost, they are there because (you would claim in court) you like dogs.

Mines and choppy spinning blades aren't kept for any other reason than to kill/maim an intruder.* There's no other "intent" possible.





*(unless they are in your secret basement "danger room", where you and your super-teammates train for agility and the ability to defeat remote threats :D )

[beerslurpy]

So substitute a booby trap with innocent uses. You arent going to get out of this by segueing into questions about whether the instrument itself is legal. Substitute a deep pit for a landmine and say I was repairing pipes but forgot to fill the hole up agian. If I put up signs, can I be faulted for other people ignoring them?

The question is whether there should be liability for an entity outside of the immediate control of the resident that attacks intruders as long as there are general warning signs or fences to prevent accidental exposure to harm.

You are saying there is a difference between a vicious dog and a mechanical substitute. I am saying that there isnt.

[carebear]

I'm not saying either, I'm posing questions as to why such a distinction is already made, to determine what the reasoning behind it may be or was.

I do have a personal problem with death traps but only because of the palpable risk to innocents, not because I think burglers and such should be coddled on their way into your house.

I like to know the "whys" of things, especially legal things.

[beerslurpy]

Yeah, I want to know why as well. Every time I have come across something in law that didnt make sense, it was either:
-a misinterpretation by laymen even less informed than myself (roe v wade struck down a federal ban on abortion no wait it didnt)
-a results-oriented decision from a much earlier time that wasnt explictly overridden by subsequent case law (for example baseball not being interstate commerce, yes really)

I think a lot of the confusion (at least to me personally) is that every state has imposed its own set of statutes over the common law and they all say different things.

I agree that unless your state allows lethal force in defense of property alone you shouldnt even think of setting booby traps.

[tellner]

Yeah, I want to know why as well. Every time I have come across something in law that didnt make sense, it was either:
-a misinterpretation by laymen even less informed than myself (roe v wade struck down a federal ban on abortion no wait it didnt)
-a results-oriented decision from a much earlier time that wasnt explictly overridden by subsequent case law (for example baseball not being interstate commerce, yes really)

I think a lot of the confusion (at least to me personally) is that every state has imposed its own set of statutes over the common law and they all say different things.

More often, people who disagree with a law refuse to believe that it can make sense. More often than not, they are laypeople who think the only way the world can run is in accordance with their prejudices and - in the strictest sense of the word - superstitions. Therefore, any law or legal decision which they do not like must be senseless. There tends to be a touch of religious fervor. Scratch the surface and they believe that the LAW is a pristine, beautiful perfect thing that has been tainted by the corrupting touch of human action rather being the result of human action. Push a little harder, and they will invoke Cosmic Authority (the Christian or Jewish G-d, Traditional Values, Common Sense, or The Market) as the source of their putatively inerrant law and authority.

I put it down to the human tendency to believe that we are perfect combined with a refusal to confront the messy sometimes complicated business of people having to govern themselves.

[beerslurpy]

You could actually try to address the questions presented instead of being sarcastic.

Do you understand that the legal system in this country is extraordinarily complex and there really is no such thing as "the law"? Case law varies from state to state and is modified by precedents in higher courts, which is partly or completely modified by statute. This is different in every state.

Some states allow lethal force to be used in defense of property.
Some states allow lethal force to be used to prevent violent felonies.
Some states allow lethal force to be used to protect the force-user's life.
Some states allow this only as a last resort.
Many states require different standards of proof in exercising a defense in these cases.
All states have statutes that address liability for certain classes of activity such as mining, cattle farming, manufacturing chemicals, keeping exotic pets like tigers or elephants, etc, etc. These statutes assign liability one way or the other depending upon what steps the property owner has taken to protect the general public from the hazard due to their class of activity.
Many classes of activity are left unaddressed and thus fall under the common law.
Many types of traps/hazards useable against burglars fall under various sections of the law regarding weapons, building permits, animal husbandry statutes or housing codes. The rule of law is fun when you have so many laws!

In short, I think the question isnt easily answerable except with the most vague and general of rules:
-In most areas, you can defend your house with lethal force if you are there and cause the force to be applied.
-In most areas, you cannot defend your property if there is no threat to your life.

[tellner]

I'm not being even vaguely sarcastic, and you're several miles wide of the point.

Yes, the law is contradictory, complicated, and often confusing. It's that way because it's a human creation. People who believe that it is or ever was clean and pristine are most often naive, delusional or have an ironclad belief in their own infallibility and the insanity of anyone else. It's not just misinterpretation of the Original Perfect Law or "results oriented legislation" whatever the heck that is other than a catchy phrase to dismiss anything inconvenient or ideologically suspect. It's the nature of law, legislation and human political life.

[beerslurpy]

Sorry, I thought that was a stab at me originally.

[Art Eatman]

beerslurpy, you're phrasing all your ideas and questions with the idea that only answers in agreement with you can be correct. Unfortunately, few agree with your view, including case law in several states as well as we here at THR.

Live with this fundamental fact: Setting up injurious boobytraps is a Very Bad Idea. It's detrimental to your billfold and to your freedom. That's just the way life is, whether you like it or not.

You can always try to prove me wrong, should you wish to test.

:D, Art

[beerslurpy]

I agree that it is illegal in most places. There is no point in arguing that reality isnt so.

I guess I dont agree that it is wrong.

When I get finished with law school, I might give it a try, but probably not. It is likely cheaper and less risky to hire armed guards in the place of setting land mines and fighting off liability.