12 Gauge Perimeter Alarm

[lysanderxiii]

I wouldn't worry too much about it really hurting any one. But . . .

 

[Solomonson]

I encourage anyone considering buying one of these to read about Katko v. Briney, where a property owner set up a shotgun as a trap. Obviously much different in that using a real shotgun and shell meant deadly force, however it is not difficult to see how a possible burglar who has an injured leg, or ruptured eardrums, or stress that prevents him from working, could cause a property owner a whole lot of headache and legal bills.

1.) These are not firearms.

2.) These units can be screwed/bolted down and pointed/secured in a way where they don't cover anyone.

3.) "Ruptured eardrums"? Really? LOL! Good grief.

 

[Solomonson]

Anyone who does not look at this and see a lawsuit waiting to happen simply does not understand the nature of trial lawyers. They also don't understand that juries don't consistently make good decisions.

Do you have a great deal of experience with these units? Do you have any at all?

Are you a lawyer or legal scholar?

 

[jmorris]

3.) "Ruptured eardrums"? Really? LOL! Good grief.

Use one in California and you might get sued because you caused someone's dog emotional stress or potentially because some lawyer could show it caused cancer in lab animals...

Not a lot of surprises these days, the person that sued after they ordered coffee then spilled it on themselves was the last one that I couldn't believe.

 

[Balrog]

Do you have a great deal of experience with these units? Do you have any at all?

Are you a lawyer or legal scholar?

Not a lawyer, but I deal with lawyers on a daily basis in negotiations and have a good understanding how they think. You don't have to take my opinion as fact. If you are comfortable using such a device, you can certainly do it, just don't be surprised if you get sued.

 

[ewlyon]

1.) These are not firearms.

2.) These units can be screwed/bolted down and pointed/secured in a way where they don't cover anyone.

3.) "Ruptured eardrums"? Really? LOL! Good grief.

You are welcome to do as you like, but this is the kind of case that me and my law school classmates laugh about. It is the kind of thing that even saying it out loud makes you think of all the different suits it could lead to. And even a suit completely lacking it in any sort of foundation can cause you significant legal bills just to respond and get it dismissed.
Again, do as you like, but don't go around thinking that it is a good idea.

 

[sequins]

As always the liability patrol is in full force. Perhaps if we were more vocal in exercising our rights we wouldn't have to live in fear of liability, because the common man would be familiar with these traps and would understand that trespassing is the greater ill.

Not to derail the thread too hard but I always see the liability patrol saying to never do anything- Never tell people you have guns, never display your guns, never use your guns. Well if we all followed that advice there would be no guns.

 

[Solomonson]

As always the liability patrol is in full force. Perhaps if we were more vocal in exercising our rights we wouldn't have to live in fear of liability, because the common man would be familiar with these traps and would understand that trespassing is the greater ill.

Not to derail the thread too hard but I always see the liability patrol saying to never do anything- Never tell people you have guns, never display your guns, never use your guns. Well if we all followed that advice there would be no guns.

You're right! I imagine the "liability patrol" (LP) doesn't just defecate on Internet threads. They're the downers -- those that find something wrong with anything under the guise of "liability." The LP's charter seems to be to suck the joy out of life -- their own and especially those of others. They're also the self-appointed sages who know more about everything -- particularly when it comes to "liability" than anyone else. I certainly wish they should just skip-over posting when they are equipped to do nothing but cast nasty palls over the discussion underway.

I wish they would also stop for a moment and compare/contrast the liability related to day-to-day activities (like driving a vehicle or walking alongside a busy street) with those activities/products they are so quick to judge!

 

[Solomonson]

You are welcome to do as you like, but this is the kind of case that me and my law school classmates laugh about. It is the kind of thing that even saying it out loud makes you think of all the different suits it could lead to. And even a suit completely lacking it in any sort of foundation can cause you significant legal bills just to respond and get it dismissed.
Again, do as you like, but don't go around thinking that it is a good idea.

You're talking out of your hat.

 

[fireman 9731]

I picked up a couple of similar items from a gun show a couple of years ago. I don't worry about the liability of them. When the dope head tries to force open the door of my barn and gets startled and/or I get alerted, I doubt their next course of action is going to be to lawyer up. They are going to high tail it out of there and probably not come back because they now know its a well protected property. The deer that used to eat my garden every year also haven't served me with papers yet.
Come on folks, stop living in constant fear of litigation.

 

[Solomonson]

I picked up a couple of similar items from a gun show a couple of years ago. I don't worry about the liability of them. When the dope head tries to force open the door of my barn and gets startled and/or I get alerted, I doubt their next course of action is going to be to lawyer up. They are going to high tail it out of there and probably not come back because they now know its a well protected property. The deer that used to eat my garden every year also haven't served me with papers yet.
Come on folks, stop living in constant fear of litigation.

I suspect when you mounted the units, you also positioned them in a way so they aren't aimed at whatever tripped on the trip line...

I'm not so sure it's a fear of litigation -- although that is a huge problem. I think it's more a matter of some very negative, very gloomy individuals who feel they need to show (and fail at) just how much wiser they are than the rest of us.

 

[ewlyon]

Again, you can do as you like. If someone wants to put one of these on their property it makes no difference to me since I am not a trespasser.
But lawyers make their living off of people who thought everything would go smoothly, and then it didn't. People think that no one is stupid enough to get hurt by something, or they are confident that they have taken enough precautions. Most of the time it works, sometimes it doesn't.
If something goes wrong with one of these devices, the person who set it up may have to answer for it financially.

 

[LoneGoose]

".......need to show (and fail at) just how........"

On the lighter side, "I don't fail. I excel at finding what doesn't work." - Christopher Titus.

 

[Solomonson]

Again, you can do as you like. If someone wants to put one of these on their property it makes no difference to me since I am not a trespasser.
But lawyers make their living off of people who thought everything would go smoothly, and then it didn't. People think that no one is stupid enough to get hurt by something, or they are confident that they have taken enough precautions. Most of the time it works, sometimes it doesn't.
If something goes wrong with one of these devices, the person who set it up may have to answer for it financially.

Yada, yada, yada. Enough of the arrogant liability patrol already!

 

[strambo]

Thanks for posting OP. I too tire of the "liability patrol" as well. Don't buy one and set it up then!

I may never buy, or use one, but I like learning about new things on the market. I also have an improvised munitions handbook and can make shaped charges, improvised zip guns, and mortars. I hope someone explains the legal downside to my actually making and using those devices before I get in trouble!

 

[JeffG]

 Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class G felony:
(a) Intentionally discharges a firearm into a vehicle or building under circumstances in which he or she should realize there might be a human being present therein; or
(b) Sets a spring gun.

This section of statutes in Wisconsin would keep me from using this device. I'd rather stick to electronics.

 

[hdwhit]

ewlyon wrote:
...even a suit completely lacking it in any sort of foundation can cause you significant legal bills just to respond and get it dismissed.

That's correct.

 

[hdwhit]

fireman 9731 wrote:
Come on folks, stop living in constant fear of litigation.

Well, if I was effectively "judgement proof" by having no assets that could be attached, I wouldn't (and at the time, I didn't) worry about lawsuits. Now that I have assets, a wife, children and a 93 year old parent dependent upon me protecting and conserving them, it starts to become a consideration.

 

[hdwhit]

Solomonson wrote:
I suspect when you mounted the units, you also positioned them in a way so they aren't aimed at whatever tripped on the trip line...

Assume I did.

But that's meaningless against a charge of "I lost my hearing because of the sound" or "Now I'm too traumatized to go outside the house".

And even if you "win" each of these allegations during the preliminary motions, how much money and time away from work and other pursuits (not to mention the heartache associated with getting sued and fearing you could lose everything) has been spent?

 

[hdwhit]

After looking at the FITHOPS website, it appears that the shotshell device is only legal in all 50 states when used with FITHOPS's terribly expensive blank an pepper-spray shot shells. The "Tim Taylor" crowd that decides to use a buckshot round "just to be sure" can be sure of no such protection in all 50 states.

 

[hdwhit]

strambo wrote:
Thanks for posting OP. I too tire of the "liability patrol" as well. Don't buy one and set it up then!

So, if you can't see the potential liability, but I can and yet because I'm afriad you might be tired of the "liability patrol", I stand mute and you use this thing and then get sued into bankrupcy, and come back here crying, "Why didn't anyone warn me?", then what can I say? But if I warn you and you use the thing anyway, then when you come back complaining about what happened to you, I can at least say that you were warned.

 

[Mn Fats]

People posting possible liability concerns aren't on "patrol". If a live shotgun shell goes off, blank or not, I'm going to be the one that sets it off with my trigger finger. Period.

 

[jeepnik]

So, no one seems to be doubting the devices usefulness. It seems mostly like a discussion as to the criminal or civil backlash from using one. It comes down to "you pays your money and takes your choice".

 

[boom boom]

I generally avoid commenting on legal issues but using items like this in open fields, even with no trespassing signs etc., could very well expose the user to criminal and civil liability.

Here is why. Self defense is a personal right to an individual, not to property (and yes I know something about Texas law) and requires an individual to use "reasonableness" in application of force. Using the device essentially means that you are booby trapping your property using automatic devices that could be lethal in some contexts in order to protect property. You would not be able to claim self defense if the item went off in someone's hands if they picked it up nor that you were acting to protect others.

Dismissing the liability concerns and claiming one has the right to harm someone in order to protect property while ignoring that the device could seriously harm or even kill under the wrong conditions could in many states be regarding as a callous or reckless disregard of human life or depraved indifference. It could also be considered as assault and battery. The action in placing those devices then would be criminal.

The individual so harmed or their family would also be able to sue for your infliction of injury to them--even if your state allows allocation of blame--would you trust a jury in your area not to place proportionate blame on the person who set a "booby trap" for the poor unsuspecting individual who was merely trespassing. Worse yet, it could be a game warden, mushroom hunters, police officers looking for a fugitive, fire fighters, a field biologist, county code enforcement, a child, a gas or power line personnel, a neighbor's dog, a lost hunter, someone in an auto accident looking for help, Girl Scouts selling cookies, that would not necessarily be considered trespassers under the law. Suppose the shell caused a fire through malfunction that spread to your neighbor's house and burned it down. Booby traps are quite different in that they are indiscriminate while presumably a human can exercise that judgment. Therefore, your butt is on the line for whatever the device does to others as you put it there and you are responsible for the consequences.

What would happen if a neighboring child wandered onto your property, picked the device up and it discharged--blanks have been known to kill people? Would a jury of twelve consider your actions "reasonable" so that you had early warning of trespassers that might not be doing anything other than transversing your fields?

Even more, there are other devices that flag potential trespassers without any chance of harming them. Electronic monitoring through sensors, motion activated cameras, even game cameras will passively record and alert without the risk of injury. The plaintiffs and prosecutors if something goes wrong with this device will point to that and say quite rightly, you had a choice to use a non-lethal method to achieve your purposes or a more lethal method. You chose the more lethal and harmful method. Think of how that would sound to the jury either civil or criminal.

Outside of outright war--some things are simply bad ideas. Booby traps are one of them. I don't have time to do the legal research involving particular cases today but I assure you that people have even been tried for manslaughter if they purposefully put some device that can cause death or assault with a deadly weapon if it causes serious injury in order to protect property. Google booby traps and criminal charges or booby traps and civil liability--a brief search of these terms just a moment ago indicates an overwhelming number of hits generally indicating that it is a very bad idea. I let it rest there.

 

[GAF]

For those worried about legal problems using the 12 ga alarm system I offer this as a replacement.

https://www.harborfreight.com/wireless-driveway-alert-system-93068.html