(TN) Booby-trapped weapon shoots alleged burglar
- Thread starter Drizzt
- Start date
- Status
beerslurpy said:
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?
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
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
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
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..."
"yes i was robbing someones house and..."
beerslurpy
member
Rockstar said:
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
member
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.
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
member
Here is my utopian vision:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the burglar in your vision already past the traps?beerslurpy said:
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.
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
Moderator In Memoriam
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
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
member
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.
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
Member
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
)
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
)beerslurpy
member
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.
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
Member
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.
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
member
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.
-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.
beerslurpy said:
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
member
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.
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.
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.
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
member
Sorry, I thought that was a stab at me originally.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
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.
, Art
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.
, Artbeerslurpy
member
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.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked