A fireman, in the performance of his official duties, and in good faith, forces entry into your dwelling to rescue potential fire victims and extinguish what may be burning. Your "booby-trap" causes injury or in any way interrupts him in the performance of his duties. You go to jail.
Non-lethal booby trap legality?
- Thread starter Dan Forrester
- Start date
- Status
silvermane_1
Member
i say that your best bet is to with a non-toxic dye pack type device.
I'm glad there is some very high road advice in this thread. I opened it expecting the worst.
I really don't see any good ways this works out. You forget and set it off on yourself. You're messing with it and set it off on yourself. A family member sets it off on accident. It malfunctions/expires/leaks. It doesn't function and you get burgled anyway. The previously mentioned fire risk. It goes off (expectedly or not) and you have to live at a hotel for a day or two due to the stench. It goes off on a burglar and you get sued. It goes off on a burglar and kills/maims/burns him and you get charged. It goes off on a cop who got called when you weren't home. It goes off on a fireman trying to save your house. The possible bad outcomes are endless.
The least likely I see is everything goes according to plan, burglar is scared off and duly embarrassed, and we all have a good laugh at the high jinks here on the Internet and your buddies high five you...
If go with a good safe, a big loud dog, and a camera/alarm.
I really don't see any good ways this works out. You forget and set it off on yourself. You're messing with it and set it off on yourself. A family member sets it off on accident. It malfunctions/expires/leaks. It doesn't function and you get burgled anyway. The previously mentioned fire risk. It goes off (expectedly or not) and you have to live at a hotel for a day or two due to the stench. It goes off on a burglar and you get sued. It goes off on a burglar and kills/maims/burns him and you get charged. It goes off on a cop who got called when you weren't home. It goes off on a fireman trying to save your house. The possible bad outcomes are endless.
The least likely I see is everything goes according to plan, burglar is scared off and duly embarrassed, and we all have a good laugh at the high jinks here on the Internet and your buddies high five you...
If go with a good safe, a big loud dog, and a camera/alarm.
Dan Forrester
Member
Thanks to every one for your responses. I’m not sure if I should go ahead with it or not at this point due to the overwhelming consensus here that it’s a bad idea.
I have searched but could not find any legislation which pertains to booby traps. Does anyone else have any other search terms I could use on the state of Florida’s website to find anything? I guess what this really comes down to is weather it is legal (or even addressed) in the state of Florida.
I’m not really too worried about fire since the fogger I was planning on using does not generate heat. It’s similar to a bug bomb only filled with OC/CS gas instead. My original idea was two glass bottles. One would contain potassium permanganate and the other would be filled with formaldehyde. The two bottles would break upon forced entry and mix in a metal bucket. A little backyard experiment showed this to produce A LOT of heat.
I like that “burglar bomb” link in the post above. The refill cartridges looks like the canisters I linked to in my original post. That burglar bomb is exactly what I was thinking of building. I guess I could just by that if I wanted and save myself from the fabrication.
I would think any firefighters who would be entering my house should be using oxygen masks before entering a burning house so I don’t think that’s a concern.
I also don’t have any pets or children who could be getting into it.
I also do have a gun safe and am planning on installing some kind of camera system (thinking of the “dropcam”) now that I have an iphone.
What I would really like to do is just gas the house remotely once I have confirmed it is being broken into. Anyone know of any apps that would allow me to do this. Any app which could turn on a motor or send an electrical current upon me entering a password I could modify for my use. This would at least legally not make it a booby trap
Thanks for all the comments, Daniel
I have searched but could not find any legislation which pertains to booby traps. Does anyone else have any other search terms I could use on the state of Florida’s website to find anything? I guess what this really comes down to is weather it is legal (or even addressed) in the state of Florida.
I’m not really too worried about fire since the fogger I was planning on using does not generate heat. It’s similar to a bug bomb only filled with OC/CS gas instead. My original idea was two glass bottles. One would contain potassium permanganate and the other would be filled with formaldehyde. The two bottles would break upon forced entry and mix in a metal bucket. A little backyard experiment showed this to produce A LOT of heat.
I like that “burglar bomb” link in the post above. The refill cartridges looks like the canisters I linked to in my original post. That burglar bomb is exactly what I was thinking of building. I guess I could just by that if I wanted and save myself from the fabrication.
I would think any firefighters who would be entering my house should be using oxygen masks before entering a burning house so I don’t think that’s a concern.
I also don’t have any pets or children who could be getting into it.
I also do have a gun safe and am planning on installing some kind of camera system (thinking of the “dropcam”) now that I have an iphone.
What I would really like to do is just gas the house remotely once I have confirmed it is being broken into. Anyone know of any apps that would allow me to do this. Any app which could turn on a motor or send an electrical current upon me entering a password I could modify for my use. This would at least legally not make it a booby trap
Thanks for all the comments, Daniel
Search on pepper spray. You may lawfully use a compact container designed to be carried on your person, but only for self defense, and never against a sworn officer. For what you may not do, consult an attorney.
Do not even consider the use of chemical agents to harm anyone or cause temporary incapacitation, unless said chemical is sold and used for personal defense, or if you are using it for law enforcement or military purposes.
Do not even consider the use of chemical agents to harm anyone or cause temporary incapacitation, unless said chemical is sold and used for personal defense, or if you are using it for law enforcement or military purposes.
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
I've often wondered about Article II, Section 3 in the Colorado Constitution:
Seems kind of open-ended with regard to protecting property.
I recall about twenty years ago there was a case where someone had rigged a dead man's trap with a shotgun in his often-burgled warehouse which killed an obvious burglar. Surprisingly, he was not prosecuted, and the details in the press were kind of sketchy, but he was not charged except for something pretty minor. He was, however, asked to leave the state, and did.
He had engaged a rather prominent attorney, and I often wondered whether he claimed constitutional protection under that article to get off the hook because there was no question about his deliberately setting up that trap.
I'm sorry I cannot provide references, but that's my recollection of the whole event. Even the press seemed embarrassed about it and suddenly sort of "hushed up" about it except to note the minor conviction and that he was asked to leave the state. My suspicion in this bizarre case was that the prosecutors were suddenly embarrassed to have that clause thrown at them, despite the actual statutes involved in setting such traps and decided to not get involved in a constitutional challenge to them. This would have opened the door to legalize "dead man's traps" for everyone.
Just my suspicions at the time, in informally following the case as it was reported in the press.
In any case, that's how the Colorado Constitution reads, so I wonder how other states' constitutions read in this regard.
All in all, though, I think in this situation, I'd rather rig a home-built, well-hidden tripwire or something to set off a really loud outside alarm.
Cheaper, simpler, and legaller.
Terry, 230RN
Seems kind of open-ended with regard to protecting property.
I recall about twenty years ago there was a case where someone had rigged a dead man's trap with a shotgun in his often-burgled warehouse which killed an obvious burglar. Surprisingly, he was not prosecuted, and the details in the press were kind of sketchy, but he was not charged except for something pretty minor. He was, however, asked to leave the state, and did.
He had engaged a rather prominent attorney, and I often wondered whether he claimed constitutional protection under that article to get off the hook because there was no question about his deliberately setting up that trap.
I'm sorry I cannot provide references, but that's my recollection of the whole event. Even the press seemed embarrassed about it and suddenly sort of "hushed up" about it except to note the minor conviction and that he was asked to leave the state. My suspicion in this bizarre case was that the prosecutors were suddenly embarrassed to have that clause thrown at them, despite the actual statutes involved in setting such traps and decided to not get involved in a constitutional challenge to them. This would have opened the door to legalize "dead man's traps" for everyone.
Just my suspicions at the time, in informally following the case as it was reported in the press.
In any case, that's how the Colorado Constitution reads, so I wonder how other states' constitutions read in this regard.
All in all, though, I think in this situation, I'd rather rig a home-built, well-hidden tripwire or something to set off a really loud outside alarm.
Cheaper, simpler, and legaller.
Terry, 230RN
Last edited:
It's not enough to just search statute law (legislation). You also need to look for potentially applicable judicial decisions. And you can't limit your research to just pepper spray, booby traps, tripwires, spring-guns or similar devices. You would need to look at general rules regarding the use of force in defense of property. You would also need to look at any statutory law and judicial decisions relating to dangerous conditions on one's property and liability of a property owner to trespassers.Dark Tranquility said:
That's why you probably need to consult with a lawyer. He knows how to do that sort of research, and evaluate what he finds.
Which is completely irrelevant here since the OP lives in Florida.230RN said:
So this information really isn't much help to anyone. In these kinds of matters, details are very important. What's needed is good documentation, not vague recollections.230RN said:
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
.
In any case, that's how the Colorado Constitution reads, so I wondered aloud how other states' constitutions read in this regard. Just another aspect of the general question of dead man's traps.
Regardless of the state involved in the OP.
I apologized for that in advance, thinking it might lead others to do the relevant research for the hard details in their states and in their own states' constitutions. State constitutions are often quite similar in their verbiage. It always struck me that Colorado's seems to leave the question open.
Terry, 230RN
Yes indeed.
Note also that when one is dealing with chemical agents other than standard OC sprays, one should also look ito the Federal law pertaining to chemical weapons (18 U.S.C S 229), which regulates the possession and use of "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals" other than "individual self defense devices using pepper spray or chemical mace".
It is likely also that he will have to consult with specialists in the Federal law.
mister_murphy
Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Messages
- 104
Frank,
If I may, I am curious about something in reference to this thread, and perhaps you can shed a bit of light on it.
Since there are some business around the south east states (I am assuming in florida also probably) that use some sort of a device used in connection with their vault that discharges a less-lethal chemical to discourage forced entry. These businesses are generally such as banks, jewelery stores etc, arent manned 24/7, and generally only have an alarm system, and video as well beyond the vault/less-lethal device.
How are these businesses able to use such a device and stay within the various laws? Its understood that they would probably be using a professionally designed/installed/maintained system, which may be an issue as well.
Im not advocating either side, just looking at this from another view point.
If I may, I am curious about something in reference to this thread, and perhaps you can shed a bit of light on it.
Since there are some business around the south east states (I am assuming in florida also probably) that use some sort of a device used in connection with their vault that discharges a less-lethal chemical to discourage forced entry. These businesses are generally such as banks, jewelery stores etc, arent manned 24/7, and generally only have an alarm system, and video as well beyond the vault/less-lethal device.
How are these businesses able to use such a device and stay within the various laws? Its understood that they would probably be using a professionally designed/installed/maintained system, which may be an issue as well.
Im not advocating either side, just looking at this from another view point.
Last edited:
I don't know, and that's why the OP really needs to consult with a lawyer if he intends to really do what he has outlined.mister_murphy said:
This is where professional advice and proper research become very important. Details matter.
Overall, applying basic legal principles, there can be serious legal issues with booby traps, and indeed with creating or allowing dangerous conditions on one's property. There are also cases holding property owners liable for injuries to trespassers.
BUT, in a particular jurisdiction, there may be ways to set up a property defense system that avoids, or at least minimizes, the potential legal complications. Perhaps the courts in a State have made a distinction between businesses and residences. Perhaps, some courts have allowed some businesses because of the value of the property on premises extra leeway. Maybe under some jurisdiction's laws warning signs could be an answer. Maybe segregating a protected vault area from the rest of the premises is key.
But I'm not going to do all the research necessary to come up with a definitive answer.
Realize that even criminally lawful actions can result in civil liability. It's not hard to spend the cost of a fine collection of firearms on attorney's fees.
It doesn't matter how stupid or wrong the criminal - there will be a personal injury lawyer visiting him in jail to sign him up.
It doesn't matter how stupid or wrong the criminal - there will be a personal injury lawyer visiting him in jail to sign him up.
mister_murphy
Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Messages
- 104
Thanks Frank,
I have read various cases starting with Katko v Briney, and going forward. Most of them deal with devices placed in a home or small business. Its rather insightful, though, like the Katko v Briney, many of the cases I have read dealt with what many would consider a known to be lethal device, such as in the mentioned case, a 20 ga shotgun.
It is interesting to note that the case of the Miami business owner, Prentice Rasheed, caused enough stir to bring a bill to the Florida Senate in 1987, SB 519, SB 519. Though as near as I can tell it didnt pass.
Source: http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1987-05-19/news/8702160733_1_booby-trap-burglary-attempts-device
I agree its best to sit down with an experienced lawyer and go through everything relevant to the situation due to the liability.
It would be interesting though to see what the restrictions would be.
I have read various cases starting with Katko v Briney, and going forward. Most of them deal with devices placed in a home or small business. Its rather insightful, though, like the Katko v Briney, many of the cases I have read dealt with what many would consider a known to be lethal device, such as in the mentioned case, a 20 ga shotgun.
It is interesting to note that the case of the Miami business owner, Prentice Rasheed, caused enough stir to bring a bill to the Florida Senate in 1987, SB 519, SB 519. Though as near as I can tell it didnt pass.
Source: http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1987-05-19/news/8702160733_1_booby-trap-burglary-attempts-device
I agree its best to sit down with an experienced lawyer and go through everything relevant to the situation due to the liability.
It would be interesting though to see what the restrictions would be.
By the time he spends enough $$$ to research the issue using competent counsel, he likely could have purchased an island and the means to get to it. As stated above more than once, details matter. The smallest, most microscopic single detail may change everything, so why not spend your hard earned dollars becoming more proficient with better training?
It's true that for the cost of a well done legal opinion the OP could take at least a couple of classes at Gunsite. But he's looking for a way to protect his property when he's not around, and no amount of training will help him with that.splithoof said:
To the OP:
I would strongly advise you to listen very carefully to what Frank is saying. There is a long history in the American legal system of frowning on the use of a booby-trap to protect your property. Even using a booby trap to defend yourself is a serious problem because the booby trap can't think... The entire basis for a self-defense legal defense it that you think you're in danger. With a gun, you can elect not to pull the trigger if it turns out to be a family member or a drunk teenager. The booby trap attacks without thinking.
Probably the best way to think about the advisability of using one is that you will be on the hook for any injury or death that you cause an intruder, even if they're burglarizing you and that as a legal matter, you won't be able to make use of any kind of self-defense justification.
If you don't think your booby trap will hurt anyone, then you're an adult and adults get to make choices. I would simply offer that these things have an odd way of going haywire, and that the people who will be deciding whether or not you should go to jail will probably not think that the use of a booby trap was a wise decision.
I would strongly advise you to listen very carefully to what Frank is saying. There is a long history in the American legal system of frowning on the use of a booby-trap to protect your property. Even using a booby trap to defend yourself is a serious problem because the booby trap can't think... The entire basis for a self-defense legal defense it that you think you're in danger. With a gun, you can elect not to pull the trigger if it turns out to be a family member or a drunk teenager. The booby trap attacks without thinking.
Probably the best way to think about the advisability of using one is that you will be on the hook for any injury or death that you cause an intruder, even if they're burglarizing you and that as a legal matter, you won't be able to make use of any kind of self-defense justification.
If you don't think your booby trap will hurt anyone, then you're an adult and adults get to make choices. I would simply offer that these things have an odd way of going haywire, and that the people who will be deciding whether or not you should go to jail will probably not think that the use of a booby trap was a wise decision.
This point is important enough that I felt it bears some emphasis. Even if there's no statute that says "Constructing or using a Type X booby trap is a crime," constructing or using same could subject one to significant civil liability. Just because I can't be held criminally liable for an action (by the State) does not mean that I can't be held civilly liable for the same action (by an injured private party).Teachu2 said:
HorseSoldier
Member
There are scenarios where they wouldn't, but still risk injury or at least exposure to the gas. There's also scenarios where law enforcement officers could be exposed to the booby trap and face injury or have it prevent their performing their duties (i.e. responding to a burglary in progress at your residence). Neither of those is a likely occurrence, but both are potential outcomes that could expose the owner of the booby trap to civil liability and potentially criminal charges depending on locality.
I think the OP would be better served by insuring firearms and looking at an alarm system. If going forward on the booby trap idea, I'd definitely confer with a lawyer to be certain that it complies with all applicable state and local laws.
SEE IT LIKE A NATIVE
Member
Now you guys have me thinking about putting down a sheet of aluminium diamondplate on the floor , set the gunsafe on the plate with ceramic tile under the corners for insulation and hook a fence charger to the safe with the ground on the aluminium plate . maybe have the charger in another room so you can turn it off when you want to ! Kevin
SEE IT LIKE A NATIVE
Member
Hey maybe I need to add an automatic mister filled with salt water !? Kevin
Starting to go off on tangents. The OP's issue has been pretty well covered. Time to stop.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked