That was my thinking.
At the supermarket he tells the cashier that he’s 8 years old. I can’t imagine an eight year old being held legally liable for anything, even if he admitted to it which he probably wouldn’t.
The booby-trap case involved a man whose place of business had been repeatedly robbed. The distinction was that he was trying to defend his PROPERTY with lethal force.
There is no such prohibition against defending one’s PERSON. A 250 pound 6’5 man wouldn’t be hard pressed to make a reasonable “fear of life” claim when confronted with a stranger, even an unarmed stranger, in his home. Most certainly a 9 year old child would have no difficulty. And with that fear comes absolution for what follows.
Now if you’re chasing the robber out the front door and deliver a bullet to his back, not so much.
That was my point. Booby traps are no good, but Our Hero can pretty much do whatever he wants as long as both the robbers and he are in the house. I don’t remember the movie well enough to recall whether there were any booby traps that would have set themselves off without any further action by Kevin – he could conceivably be liable for those.
There were at least two at entry points - the electric charcoal starter that heated the front doorknob hot enough to glow, and the blowtorch that set Joe Pesci’s hair on fire when he opened the outside kitchen door. The first is especially egregious, in that you didn’t even have to enter the house to be injured.
You’ve never seen "
With Honors". Good movie.
You can’t legally set booby traps. But I have to say any kid capable of rigging a zip line can certainly load up the remains of his exploites in the van they came in and drive it to a secluded spot.
No way Kevin could have done that. He was far too short.
Haven’t read the thread, just taking a stab at the question in the title.
In my state, arguably, he’d have zero liability. This state has both a very strong castle doctrine and a stand your ground law. Normally, you can’t set untended traps, as noted above, but if I remember the movie right, the kid was in the house alone (hence the title), and actively defending against a burglary/home invasion by two or more adults. Kid has a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death, so the use of deadly force would be permissable. I really doubt the local DA would even take it to a grand jury.
Bringing a civil case against a homeowner, for injuries inflicted to a felon during a burglary, just isn’t viable here.
Plus the iced stairs down to the basement entrance, but it’d probably be hard to prove that that was a deliberately-set trap (though in point of fact it was).
For thought-manslaughter? Eh, he’d be out before he turned 18. 
True. And who could blame him for wanting to kill gross Buzz or molestery uncle Frank?
The first Home Alone movie takes place in Chicago, doesn’t it? And the second one’s definitely in New York City. I wonder what the local laws are there.
It takes place in a suburb of Chicago. I seem to remember them saying at one point that it’s in Oak Park, but can’t recall for sure.
Some parents would disagree about what their little darlings are capable of.
I didn’t say that he couldn’t drive the car at all. I’m saying that he could not have done so ably enough to load all the evidence into the vehicle and hide all the evidence in a secluded spot.