(TN) Booby-trapped weapon shoots alleged burglar

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

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

Click to expand...

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.

Florida deadly force (and elsewhere)

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.

Even the US military no longer uses land mines.

Click to expand...

I must have missed the press release.

Even the US military no longer uses land mines.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

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).

Bartholomew Roberts said:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

beerslurpy said:

Not if TN protects homesteads like Florida does.

Click to expand...

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.

beerslurpy said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Andrew Rothman said:

I must have missed the press release.

Click to expand...

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

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:

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

HankB said:

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.)

Click to expand...

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.

beerslurpy said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

beerslurpy said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

molonlabe said:

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...

Click to expand...

+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.

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."

Click to expand...

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.