Intruder injured by boobytrap in home invasion, homeowner arrested.

[pool]

http://www.kobtv.com/index.cfm?viewe...22710&cat=HOME

My god, the man even put up a sign warning of possible injury to intruders I guess he should have just killed the guy. Whats the point of even trying to keep your home safe from burglars when shit like this happens.
Oh well, I'm sure the "victim" will win an assload of money in a civil trial so I guess his attempted robbery will be successful anyway.

[ivylass]

It's against the law to booby trap your house?

I can imagine if the person shot was a UPS deliveryman, or the pizza delivery guy, someone you "invited" to your house, but what's wrong with protecting your house against a burglar?

[Johnny L.A.]

Well... I've never heard of a state where booby traps were legal. By installing a booby trap, the man violated the law. Since the trap was triggered, the man committed assault with a deadly weapon with malice aforethought. And the sign doesn't actually say 'WARNING! This door is rigged with a shotgun booby trap. If you open it, you will probably die!' It was more along the lines of, 'If you break in, it's your fault if you slip on the floor.'

[Wolfian]

: Claps hands to side of face :

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

[enipla]

While I agree that you have every right to defend your home. This kind of shit is just a very, very bad idea.

Might as well mine the yard as well.

[pool]

And the sign doesn't actually say 'WARNING!

Oh "break in at your own risk" is too difficult to understand?

Yeah I can see how that kind of statement would be confusing.

[Johnny L.A.]

Originally Posted by enipla

Might as well mine the yard as well.

That's the first thing I thought of. I read a book where a guy had a sign on the road to his house: 'PRIVATE ROAD MINED'.

I don't remember whether it was, but I do remember that he explained it away as 'private road, mind' and he just misspelled it.

[Johnny L.A.]

Originally Posted by pool

Oh "break in at your own risk" is too difficult to understand?

Yeah I can see how that kind of statement would be confusing.

Carnival rides often have signs that say 'ride at your own risk'. They don't say, 'Beware the rotating knives!'

[pool]

I think there is a slight difference between paying money to go on a ride that may have some potentially dangerous occurences and breaking into a person's home who has even gone to the trouble putting up a warning sign which they shouldn't of even had to do in the first place because the asshole shouldn't have broken in.

[pool]

Carnival rides often have signs that say 'ride at your own risk'. They don't say, 'Beware the rotating knives!'

Is there any similarity to legally going on an amusement park ride and breaking into someone's home?
That is a pretty weak analogy.

[silenus]

All booby traps are massively illegal for the very simple reason that they work without human guidance. What if it was a fireman coming through the door? Or an EMT? Or a child? Booby traps are, and by all rights should be illegal and banned.

[pool]

I agree with you that boobytraps should be illegal as they don't discriminate I just think it sucks that the homeowner is going to be really get screwed over multiple times for just being a victim and he will probably be held accountable for the guys injuries in a court of law, which legally he has to be it just sucks that he has to get kicked while hes down.

[Johnny L.A.]

Don't get me wrong. I've had stuff stolen from me a few times. I've wished I had a cyanide gas canister in my car that would eliminate the thief. I totally sympathise with people who want to set up booby traps.

But it's against the law. 'Two wrongs don't make a right' and all that. But the underlying thought is this: 'I'm going to kill someone who tries to take my property!' Most people will say, 'Is a thing worth a person's life?' I tend to turn it around. I think a thief should ask himself, 'Is whatever I want to steal worth my life?' Thieves have to take their chances, as far as I'm concerned.

But I still think it's wrong set up a deadly trap to protect propoerty. There are other solutions. For example, the shop owner could have requested more police patrols. He could have staked out his place and sat there with a shotgun himself. He could have improved the physical security of his shop. But instead he set up a trap designed to kill.

I have a key to the studio. There's a lot of expensive gear in there, and I could creep in whenever no one is there. But I wouldn't, of course. However I might go in to drop off some equipment, to get a piece of equipment, to use the computer. I could go in for a number of legitimate reasons. Suppose they put up a trap and forgot to tell me? I'd be an innocent victim. Booby traps do not discriminate. That's why they're illegal.

[Campion]

Originally Posted by ivylass

It's against the law to booby trap your house?

Yep. Spring guns have been illegal since the founding (we imported the law from England), and they continue to be illegal. Because the spring gun cannot distinguish between the burglar and the UPS guy (i.e., people legitimately there and not legitimately there), they are illegal:

Originally Posted by People v. Ceballos, 12 Cal. 3d 470 (1974)

Allowing persons, at their own risk, to employ deadly mechanical devices imperils the lives of children, firemen and policemen acting within the scope of their employment, and others. Where the actor is present, there is always the possibility he will realize that deadly force is not necessary, but deadly mechanical devices are without mercy or discretion. Such devices "are silent instrumentalities of death. They deal death and destruction to the innocent as well as the criminal intruder without the slightest warning. The taking of human life [or infliction of great bodily injury] by such means is brutally savage and inhuman." (See State v. Plumlee, supra, 149 So. 425, 430.)

The bestest modern American spring gun case is Katko v. Briney. Katko broke into Briney's farmhouse. Because the farmhouse was isolated and Briney had had several problems with breakins before, Briney had rigged up a spring gun. When Katko broke in, the spring gun shot him in the leg. Katko (the burglar) sued Briney (the homeowner) and won. A blog about the case notes that Katko won $30,000 for the injury (as the author says,a huge amount and the McDonald's coffee case of its day). Briney's neighbors, outraged, loaned Briney the money to pay Katko so that Briney wouldn't lose his house. But Briney didn't pay them back, there was a falling out, and the neighbors sued Briney. Truly, an epic story.

[Johnny L.A.]

I'd forgotten about firemen and other emergency personnel.

Originally Posted by pool

I just think it sucks that the homeowner is going to be really get screwed over multiple times for just being a victim...

The thing is, when he set up the trap he became a criminal. As little sympathy as I have for thieves, the owner is a criminal.

[Campion]

Is it legal to booby-trap your own property?

[meara]

After reading the linked article, I'm with the cops on this one. There are a lot of scenarios which would have led to that trap being sprung by a fireman, a policeman, an EMT, a family member or a child.

Booby traps are a bad idea. Booby traps involving firearms and other deadly options are criminal.

[Jackmannii]

There was a case in Indiana awhile back where a guy whose trailer had been repeatedly broken into, set up a booby trap with a shotgun loaded with rock salt. The next burglar was shot and died. The homeowner was found guilty at trial.

I don't remember what the penalty was, but if I sat on such a jury I'd certainly consider a fine or a very stern warning.

[SteveG1]

Booby traps ARE a bad idea, for all the reasons already stated. They don't distinguish between robbers and dear old Aunt May.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

I don't remember what the penalty was, but if I sat on such a jury I'd certainly consider a fine or a very stern warning.

And if the trap had killed a fireman, or dear old Auntie Agatha?

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by This Year's Model

And if the trap had killed a fireman, or dear old Auntie Agatha?

Obviously a very different circumstance. Read my post again, which clearly referred to the specific example of a repeatedly victimized homeowner, who set up what should have been a non-lethal trap for a burglar, and which ended up killing the burglar.

Would you favor the same penalty in these two scenarios:

1) Individual who is repeatedly threatened by physically abusive stalker, shoots and kills stalker battering at her front door.

2) Individual fearful of strangers, who shoots through her front door and kills the UPS man.

?

[AFAIKnow]

Originally Posted by This Year's Model

And if the trap had killed a fireman, or dear old Auntie Agatha?

And if Agatha had balls.......

[Euthanasiast]

How many times had this guy been robbed (possibly by the same guy) where he felt compelled to put up a sign and booby trap his home?

I always wondered what goes through the majority of minds of criminals who break into homes to steal. Do they consider what they will do if they encounter a resident during the break in? Will the majority of them run, or attack the resident?

In my mind, if you are in my home then you mean me harm. You made a conscious decision to take the risks associated with breaking and entering my dwelling. Odds are fairly strong that at this point you (as a burglar) have already considered this and simply don't care, which means you are a danger to me.

I doubt that I'd set booby traps in my home after the first robbery, maybe not even after the second. But how many times before I start taking matters into my own hands? I absolutely must feel safe in my own home if nowhere else. If you keep taking that away from me, perhaps booby trapping becomes the only alternative. I know some will argue that I should just move, but is that always an option? If you live in a shitty neighborhood you probably can't afford to move.

Still, it would take a serious situation for me to consider booby trapping my home, but I will say one thing, and this is something that will not be popular on these boards...

If I catch you breaking into my house, you will not leave alive. You've made a decision to take your life into your hands by breaking and entering and you should know that I consider you a threat to my life and the lives of my family. There is no way that I will allow you to live, so that you can come back after serving your sentence and exact your revenge on me at your leisure.

There is one certain way to guarantee that you will not be killed in my home, and that is to stay the hell out of it unless you have been invited.

[Metacom]

Originally Posted by meara

After reading the linked article, I'm with the cops on this one. There are a lot of scenarios which would have led to that trap being sprung by a fireman, a policeman, an EMT, a family member or a child.

Or a burglar, who doesn't deserve to die for being a burglar.

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by Metacom

Or a burglar, who doesn't deserve to die for being a burglar.

People get killed all the time by burglars/robbers. Is their right to live any less than the potential killer's right to live? Bust into my home, and you better be ready to run. It's that simple. I won't risk my life or the lives of others in my house to wait and see if you're planning to kill someone.

[Johnny L.A.]

Originally Posted by Euthanasiast

If I catch you breaking into my house, you will not leave alive. You've made a decision to take your life into your hands by breaking and entering and you should know that I consider you a threat to my life and the lives of my family. There is no way that I will allow you to live, so that you can come back after serving your sentence and exact your revenge on me at your leisure.

I feel this is morally wrong. As I said, an intruder has to ask himself whether what he wants is worth his life. But that doesn't mean his life has to be taken. In spite of my collection of firearms (some would call it an 'arsenal' and 'alarming') none of them are for defence. I do have one pistol with a loaded magazine, but the pistol itself is unloaded. I do not feel threatened in my home. (Or anywhere else, for that matter.) If someone came into my home, I might use the pistol to stop him. Stop. Not kill. He might die, but I would never intentionally kill anyone. If someone pointed a gun at me, I would shoot. But to stop, not to kill. Of course I'd aim for his torso. If he dies, he dies. He shouldn't have pointed a gun at me. But my intention would be to stop him. If I kill him, then I'll have to live with it the rest of my life. If I intended to kill him, then I'll have to live with it the rest of my life and face possible criminal charges.

[cmyk]

Originally Posted by AFAIKnow

And if Agatha had balls.......

Uncle Agatha?

[Metacom]

Originally Posted by SteveG1

People get killed all the time by burglars/robbers. Is their right to live any less than the potential killer's right to live? Bust into my home, and you better be ready to run. It's that simple. I won't risk my life or the lives of others in my house to wait and see if you're planning to kill someone.

In the case of a booby trap, your life isn't at risk because you're not there.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

Would you favor the same penalty in these two scenarios:

1) Individual who is repeatedly threatened by physically abusive stalker, shoots and kills stalker battering at her front door.

2) Individual fearful of strangers, who shoots through her front door and kills the UPS man.

?

No, i would not favor the same penalty, but you're completely missing the point of the argument. As the case cited by Campion says:

Where the actor is present, there is always the possibility he will realize that deadly force is not necessary, but deadly mechanical devices are without mercy or discretion. Such devices "are silent instrumentalities of death. They deal death and destruction to the innocent as well as the criminal intruder without the slightest warning.

In other words, the law makes a specific distinction between a person firing a gun in defense of his or her home, and a mechanical gun that is set up to defend the property. The very decision you are asking us to judge is a decision that a mechanical gun has no power to make. It fires indiscriminately at whomever happens to trigger the mechanism.

In a case like this, the person who set the trap is being punished not only for the damage it did to the burglar, but for the damage it might have done to someone who had a legitimate reason for entering the house. And that's why the damn things are illegal.

Originally Posted by SteveG1

People get killed all the time by burglars/robbers. Is their right to live any less than the potential killer's right to live? Bust into my home, and you better be ready to run. It's that simple. I won't risk my life or the lives of others in my house to wait and see if you're planning to kill someone.

Another person who is specifically missing the distinction between being able to make the decision to fire yourself, on the one hand, and leaving it up to a machine, on the other. No-one in this thread is denying you the right to defend yourself on your own property.

As Metacom says, if you're not at home, how is your life in danger?

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by Metacom

In the case of a booby trap, your life isn't at risk because you're not there.

Strawman. I already said booby traps are not OK. Answer my question. Is the life of the person forcing his way in, more "sacred" than my life?

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by mhendo

No, i would not favor the same penalty, but you're completely missing the point of the argument. As the case cited by Campion says:In other words, the law makes a specific distinction between a person firing a gun in defense of his or her home, and a mechanical gun that is set up to defend the property. The very decision you are asking us to judge is a decision that a mechanical gun has no power to make. It fires indiscriminately at whomever happens to trigger the mechanism.

I already said booby traps are not OK. I was concentrating on the "hint" that the bad guy had some innate right to safety or right to life that outweighs the victim in his/her own home. Again, I already said booby traps are bad.

[Contrapuntal]

Let's suppose your property is surrounded by a fence. At night, for security, your attack trained guard dogs roam freely. They are unable to discriminate between bad guys and good guys. If they kill an intruder are you to blame?

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by SteveG1

Strawman. I already said booby traps are not OK. Answer my question. Is the life of the person forcing his way in, more "sacred" than my life?

But that's a different question than the one being asked in this thread. If you are at home, and are in fear for your safety, the answer is "no."

But if you're not home, the question is completely moot because your life is not in danger. In such cases, the only question is whether a burglar's life is worth more than your laptop computer or DVD player, and, much as i dislike burglars, the answer to that question is "yes."

[kanicbird]

But it's against the law. 'Two wrongs don't make a right' and all that. But the underlying thought is this: 'I'm going to kill someone who tries to take my property!' Most people will say, 'Is a thing worth a person's life?' I tend to turn it around. I think a thief should ask himself, 'Is whatever I want to steal worth my life?' Thieves have to take their chances, as far as I'm concerned

The problem w/ 2 wrongs don't make a right, is that many see that the homeowner did not wrong the thief.

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by Contrapuntal

Let's suppose your property is surrounded by a fence. At night, for security, your attack trained guard dogs roam freely. They are unable to discriminate between bad guys and good guys. If they kill an intruder are you to blame?

You raised them that way, you trained them. You take responsibility.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by SteveG1

I was concentrating on the "hint" that the bad guy had some innate right to safety or right to life that outweighs the victim in his/her own home.

Well, i agree that you shouldn't have to wait to determine whether the burglar is "just" going to steal stuff, or whether he actually has more nefarious motives. You should be able to defend yourself the moment he enters the place.

There was a case in Australia, some years back before i moved to the US, where a guy held up a store (antiques or jewellery, i think). He got his swag, didn't hurt anyone, and left the store. As he left the property, the store owner pulled a gun from behind the counter, followed him outside, and shot him in the back as he ran away.

Now, as i said, i have no time for burglars or robbers, but in this case the only thing saved by this man's death was a bunch of stuff. No-one's life was in danger any more, the immediate threat was over. This is the sort of thing i think is unjustified.

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by mhendo

But that's a different question than the one being asked in this thread. If you are at home, and are in fear for your safety, the answer is "no."

But if you're not home, the question is completely moot because your life is not in danger. In such cases, the only question is whether a burglar's life is worth more than your laptop computer or DVD player, and, much as i dislike burglars, the answer to that question is "yes."

If nobody is at home, I'd be pissed off at being robbed, but there was no life threat actual or implied. AS I ALREADY SAID, NO BOOBY TRAPS. However, if I AM at home and some tweaker smashes his way in, all bets are off.

[Ike Witt]

So, the booby trap is illegal, but would it be okay to set up a silent alarm in your bedroom and then take the burgular by surprise and shoot him?

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by mhendo

He got his swag, didn't hurt anyone, and left the store. As he left the property, the store owner pulled a gun from behind the counter, followed him outside, and shot him in the back as he ran away.

Now, as i said, i have no time for burglars or robbers, but in this case the only thing saved by this man's death was a bunch of stuff. No-one's life was in danger any more, the immediate threat was over. This is the sort of thing i think is unjustified.

Right. He had the stuff and was leaving. Nobody had been hurt. If he had been shot during the robbery, it could be justified... "We didn't know if he was not going to kill us anyway".

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by adam yax

So, the booby trap is illegal, but would it be okay to set up a silent alarm in your bedroom and then take the burgular by surprise and shoot him?

How many ways are we going to fiddle with the conditions? What if he looks like Freddy Kruger and materializes out of the wall? What if he looks like the hated cousin who tortured your puppies and drwoned you duck in the swimming pool? What if it's a little green man with an anal probe?

If I am at home, and someone breaks in, and I feel threatened, I will shoot. If I wound him fine. If I miss and he shits his pants and runs off, fine. If he dies, it's unfortunate but he was not supposed to be there anyway. What should I do? Offer him a cup of coffee and brownies? Wait for him to shoot or stab first? I don't think so.

[Campion]

Originally Posted by Contrapuntal

Let's suppose your property is surrounded by a fence. At night, for security, your attack trained guard dogs roam freely. They are unable to discriminate between bad guys and good guys. If they kill an intruder are you to blame?

Two things: many jurisdictions have laws on the books regarding liability for dog attacks. Many of those laws are strict liability, such that (independent of the spring gun laws) you'd be liable for any attacks made by your dogs.

Second, assuming laws about dogs didn't exist, you'd have some of the same problems with attack dogs as you would with spring guns. Can the attack dogs distinguish between the burglar hopping the fence to steal from you, and little Timmy next door, hopping the fence to get his ball back? Probably not -- if they've been trained to stop anyone who comes over the fence, you'd be liable for damages if they stopped the burglar the same as if they stopped sweet little Timmy.

SteveG1 and adam yax: you each are asking whether it is legal to shoot an intruder. That varies by jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions impose a reasonable duty to retreat; others don't. It's an issue unrelated to the OP.

[GusNSpot]

Here we go..... same old argument and what if this and what if that.

Either we have the right to self defense or we don't.

If we don't, games over.

If we do, then each person must make a decision.

To defend them selves and when and how.

To not defend themselves.

Just make the decision before hand. In the middle of a murder attempt is not the time to start thinking about it.

:: I my opinion, if a person who is responsible in fact or by societal norms, for the safety of others and will not defend them, they have a moral obligation to make that clear from the get go so that those they are responsible for can make alternate arrangements if so desired. ::

YMMV

All the rest of the fussing here is just silly.

[Contrapuntal]

Originally Posted by Campion

Second, assuming laws about dogs didn't exist, you'd have some of the same problems with attack dogs as you would with spring guns.

It seemed that way to me too, but people still have them. Suppose my dog was not a trained attack dog, and I had sufficient 'beware of dog' signs on my fence. Am I liable for damage to a tresspasser who is bitten by my dog?

[Bryan Ekers]

I'd give the homeowner such a wrist-slap....

[SteveG1]

Since we are on a detour anyway, requiring a "duty to retreat" violates the federal Constitution and many many state constitutions, violates civil rights and the rights of the robbery victim, and puts the onus on the robbery victim to prove he/she could not retreat. If you are caught by surprise in your home, it is probable that you can not retreat, simply because you've been caught by surprise and there is no where to retreat to. To try and file charges because you "didn't run away from your own home fast enough" is a travesty of justice. I have cited various state and federal rulings on this. "Duty to retreat" is an attempt to turn the victim into a criminal. NOTE!!! I am not talking about blasting away at someone who is not a threat or backshooting someone who is already leaving. I am not talking about going Batman or going Punisher on some evil-doer, I am talking about the simple right to protection against imminent serious threat.

People v Riddle (Michigan law)
Where the defendant claims he was threatened by another man in his garage, did he have a duty to retreat before defending himself? Michigan law has long held that a person in his or her own home does not have to retreat from an attacker.

The Sunshine State’s so-called "stand-your-ground" law is not a novel concept, although it is hardly universal in the "land of the free and home of the brave." In Washington where the state constitution explicitly guarantees, "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired" the state Supreme Court has twice affirmed in recent years that there is "no duty to retreat."

The principle in both cases, known as State v. Studd (1999) and State v. Reynaldo Redmond (2003), is unambiguous. "The law is well settled," said the court in the Redmond ruling, "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be."
Self-defense is not "taking the law into your own hands." Rather, it is acting within the law in the face of imminent and unavoidable danger of grave bodily harm or death.

Beard v. United States (1894)
Beard's manslaughter conviction charge was overturned by the Supreme Court because the judge in the lower court had instructed the jury that Beard had a duty to retreat before using deadly force. Said the Court: Beard was entitled to <<stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such way and with such force>> needed to protect himself from harm.

D. Beard v. United States: There is No Duty to Retreat Before Using Deadly Force
In Beard v. United States, [FN129] the Supreme Court took up an issue which would reach its culmination in a 1921 case [FN130] - victims of a criminal attack have no duty to retreat before using lawful deadly force.

A six-year study of Supreme Court cases has found scores of "forgotten decisions" affecting the "highly contested" constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Titled "Supreme Court Gun Cases," the study examines 92 cases - 44 of them unedited -
"Three dozen of the cases quote or mention the Second Amendment directly," says a statement by Bloomfield Press, publisher of the study.

The authors also show how the Supreme Court has recognized and supported armed self defense "with personally owned firearms" and that "an ancient 'duty to retreat'" from a threat "is not obligatory."

[DanBlather]

Originally Posted by Wolfian

: Claps hands to side of face :

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Home Alone 2: The trial

[DanBlather]

Originally Posted by Contrapuntal

It seemed that way to me too, but people still have them. Suppose my dog was not a trained attack dog, and I had sufficient 'beware of dog' signs on my fence. Am I liable for damage to a tresspasser who is bitten by my dog?

In some cases you are more liable if you have signs, since that indicates you knew that the dog was dangerous.

[Contrapuntal]

Originally Posted by DanBlather

In some cases you are more liable if you have signs, since that indicates you knew that the dog was dangerous.

I don't want to pick a nit here but the dog is not necessarily dangerous. He's just a dog. Someone jumps the fence, ignoring my 'no tresspassing, private property signs,' startles him, and gets bitten. Am I liable?

[SteveG1]

Are giant mutant wolverines allowed? As far as I know, no laws specifically mention them

[Ike Witt]

Originally Posted by SteveG1

Are giant mutant wolverines allowed? As far as I know, no laws specifically mention them

I'll take 2.