Anti-poaching flintlock

Jonny2guns said:
Heard of farmers doing that around here maybe 75 years ago when horse thieves would get into their barns and steal horses. After the first one or two the farmers were tried for murder.
Doesn't seem right when they broke into your place to steal and you are the bad guy.
Click to expand...
Lethal force in defense of property when there's no danger to your person? Questionable, very questionable.
 
toivo said:
Lethal force in defense of property when there's no danger to your person? Questionable, very questionable.
Click to expand...
When horse thieves knew they were undertaking a hanging offense there was predisposition their undertaking was done so with lethal intent to do you harm. Whether reducing the severity of their consequences and sentencing cannot infer they are no less intent to do you harm - lethal or othwise🦊
 
toivo said:
Lethal force in defense of property when there's no danger to your person? Questionable, very questionable.
Click to expand...
Laws were very different when that object was made and Common Law allowed for the use of deadly force to protect chattel. Statutory laws changed that and today society values human life over chattel.

I posted only to share a historic object, not to promote violence.
 
moose1858 said:
When horse thieves knew they were undertaking a hanging offense there was predisposition their undertaking was done so with lethal intent to do you harm.
Click to expand...
The thing is that booby-trap devices work even when you aren't there. Unless you deactivate the device when you aren't home, you can't really argue that it is a self-defense measure.

Anyway, given that property crimes are no longer hanging offenses, it's moot anyway.
 
4v50 Gary said:
Laws were very different when that object was made and Common Law allowed for the use of deadly force to protect chattel. Statutory laws changed that and today society values human life over chattel.

I posted only to share a historic object, not to promote violence.
Click to expand...
Understood. I was only making the point that this would be a very bad idea today.
 
4v50 Gary said:
Laws were very different when that object was made and Common Law allowed for the use of deadly force to protect chattel. Statutory laws changed that and today society values human life over chattel.

I posted only to share a historic object, not to promote violence.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t the law in Texas give homeowners the right to use deadly force against anyone engaged in the commission of a felony? Some years ago I read an account of a homeowner killing a thief as he ran away with his television. No charges were proffered against him.
 
woodnbow said:
Doesn’t the law in Texas give homeowners the right to use deadly force against anyone engaged in the commission of a felony? Some years ago I read an account of a homeowner killing a thief as he ran away with his television. No charges were proffered against him.
Click to expand...

A lot of states do. Castle doctrine even extends to vehicles in some of them.
 
toivo said:
Lethal force in defense of property when there's no danger to your person? Questionable, very questionable.
Click to expand...
4v50 Gary said:
Laws were very different when that object was made and Common Law allowed for the use of deadly force to protect chattel. Statutory laws changed that and today society values human life over chattel.

I posted only to share a historic object, not to promote violence.
Click to expand...

Right, in fact, notices had to be posted and/or public announcements made that such devices would in fact be in use on said property. Keep in mind that this is in England, not the US, and from the 1700s or 1800s. Heck, a LOT of our laws have changed since then as well.

Here is another example and more explanation...
marketlavingtonmuseum.wordpress.com

Preventing poaching

Preventing poaching Many of the items we have in Market Lavington date from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries – with already a growing number from the 21st. We rely, totally, on donations and …
marketlavingtonmuseum.wordpress.com marketlavingtonmuseum.wordpress.com
 
woodnbow said:
Doesn’t the law in Texas give homeowners the right to use deadly force against anyone engaged in the commission of a felony? Some years ago I read an account of a homeowner killing a thief as he ran away with his television. No charges were proffered against him.
Click to expand...

I don't recall the law saying anything about a felony per se as not all such transgressions require felony level status. For example, somebody pinching your beater $25 bicycle off your front porch would not rise to a felony status, but if it was being stolen at night (which is a key stipulation of the law that you left out), then lethal force may be used in circumstances where you have no other reasonable expectation of recovering the property otherwise.

Here are the specific, relevant laws...
§ 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

I believe that this law actually goes back to British common law about crimes at night.
 
Dixie Gun works used to sell "mouse traps" and I have something similar somewhere:



I can see why they stopped selling them.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
I don't recall the law saying anything about a felony per se as not all such transgressions require felony level status. For example, somebody pinching your beater $25 bicycle off your front porch would not rise to a felony status, but if it was being stolen at night (which is a key stipulation of the law that you left out), then lethal force may be used in circumstances where you have no other reasonable expectation of recovering the property otherwise.

Here are the specific, relevant laws...
§ 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

I believe that this law actually goes back to British common law about crimes at night.
Click to expand...
Those damn stipulations . I’m simply commenting on an article I read on the internet. Maybe I should visit an attorney and ask him to build a disclaimer to replace my signature.
 
There's a YouTube video of a claymore type device filled with paint to deter poachers. I'm pretty sure it was set up but it's still funny. I'm not going to post a link because of language but look up Hunting trespasser gets painted.
 
Doesn’t the law in Texas give homeowners the right to use deadly force against anyone engaged in the commission of a felony?
Click to expand...
No, it's way more complicated than that.
Some years ago I read an account of a homeowner killing a thief as he ran away with his television. No charges were proffered against him.
Click to expand...
TX does allow for use of deadly force by a person in protection of property under some very specific circumstances. Double Naught Spy quoted the law. It's important to understand that the first section of the law (9.41) talks about "force" but not about "deadly force". The second section (9.42) talks about "deadly force".

There had to be more to the story than just someone running away with a TV. Shooting someone running away with property would be murder under the TX deadly force laws, in general. There would have to be several other circumstances before the property owner could expect to be acquitted for the use of deadly force to protect property. For example, if it was a simple theft, the theft would have to take place at nighttime, AND the property owner would have to be justified in using force under the first section of the law (9.41) AND there would have to be no reasonable chance of recovering the property by other means AND the property owner would have to believe that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to recover the property AND the property owner would have to reasonably believe that using any other means to recover the property would expose him to substantial risk of death or serious injury AND this would all have to take place immediately after the theft occurred as the thief was leaving with the property.

AND the property owner should expect to be charged. While there have been some high-profile cases where people in TX have killed someone over property and been acquitted, they did go to trial. Whatever you're shooting to protect had better be extremely valuable because it's probably going to cost you a ton of money and time defending yourself in court.

By the way, booby traps in TX may not present substantial risk of death or serious injury and their use must be reasonable in all possible circumstances where they could be triggered.


Sec. 9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:
(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and
(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.

In other words, the device may not use deadly force and the property owner needs to have taken steps to insure that it won't be triggered except under circumstances where a qualifying law is being broken. Basically, (for example) it had better not pepper spray (or detain, etc.) someone who is going about their legal business. The property owner must set things up so it's a sure thing that the person has done something that would qualify for the use of force to protect property before the device triggers.
 
I think these are called swivel guns. Pretty much a booby- trap gun. Definitely from a time when you could legally kill the peasants encroaching onto your estate grounds, usually trying to find game to poach. After all, the Lord of the manor owns all the game thereon.
 
Swivel guns per se were small cannons mounted on a spigot that could be shipboard or for defense of a fort. There is a brass swivel gun that was on the paddlesteamer USS MIssissippi (Matthew Perry's flagship when he visited Japan) at the 45th Infantry Division Museum in OKC. I know the curator and he didn't know it had roots to Farragut (USS Mississippi was sunk at Port Hudson when Farragut's squadron forced its passage up the Mississippi River). Told him the best account of that naval battle was in Dewey's memoirs. Being a book by a squid, I doubt if that was in the Thunderbird's library.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Beaver danger
Replies
15
Views
1K
sm
S
J
  • Locked
Incident regarding trespassing/poaching
2 3
Replies
73
Views
4K
LoganDub8388
L
S
  • Locked
Anti-Sniper Robot
Replies
18
Views
1K
ctdonath
C
N
  • Locked
New Anti Gun Ordinance in Santa Clara, CA
Replies
20
Views
1K
romma
R
D
  • Locked
Snap Shooting 101....
Replies
14
Views
5K
Dave McCracken
D
Back
Top