Somewhat similar to Astro’s thread (I imagine he’s off hunting now), how will/how does the castle doctrine intersect with mantraps (if at all)?
As I understand it, in most jurisdictions I’d normally be in a spot of trouble if an intruder succumbed to one of the tripwire/tiger-laden pits I have around the house.
Let’s say I put fluffy pillows on the bottom and chained the kitties up while I am away, but whenever we’re home the pillows come out and the chains come off. A person breaks into our house with the intent to cause harm, mayhem and to commit a bit of mopery upon our premises while we are asleep. He falls into the Tiger Trap and is promptly dispatched. We wake the next morning and call the police. Does the state have a case against us? Would his heirs have a viable case against us?
Do some castle doctrines now include the protection of property in permissible lethal force (assuming self defence had been limited to protection of individuals)? If so, does that imply that I can leave the traps armed while I leave?
Or do the various enacting laws specifically address the issue?
The only case I know of is from New York. Guy got tired of getting robbed (something like 8 times in 6 months or so), so he set up an electrical trap at the basement window he suspected the intruder(s) were using.
Sure enough, the ninth time was the charm, and the guy got frittered. Unfortunately the owner got nailed for manslaughter charges because the trap might have been triggered by an innocent person, even though evidence showed that it was the same guy that had robbed him before. The burglar’s family also successfully sued him as well.
So yeah, mantraps seems to be frowned on, at least in New York. Just gotta love New York.
Say that in your absence, a fire starts in your home, and firefighters break in to see if you’re around and/or due to the “in case of fire, save our kitties!” signs posted on your windows. Mantraps can’t distinguish between Bad Guys and everyone else that might have an innocent reason to be there.
You should be able to pre-emptively waive your right to have the fire fought; or better, register with officials any traps so that if you are away, no one who would have a “right” to enter your home (police/fire) would be endangered.
Oops, sorry I wasn’t clear in the OP. I’m well aware of conventional legal analysis regarding mantraps.
This question is specifically about how (or whether) modern castle doctrine legislation and ongoing interpretations will effect the traditional interpretation/discussion.
Most fires have the potential of spreading to neighboring homes, so city officials (and firefighters) have an interest in not allowing houses to burn unchecked.
I don’t see why there’s be any change to the interpretation. Even the castle doctrine doesn’t permit you to kill anyone for any reason just because they’re on/in your property. It just says that you are able to use lethal force to defend yourself from what you perceive as a deadly threat, without having to use options like fleeing your own home.
The bottom line is that a mantrap is a hazard that you set up without perceiving any threat. Without the perception of threat, you’re not engaging in self-defense. You may have imagine a threat through all of your “What if?” scenarios, but imagining a threat isn’t the same as actually responding to it. As long as you’re asleep, you didn’t perceive danger and were not acting in self-defense.
If you really want to drop someone into a pit full of tigers, the only way to call it self-defense is to have it be activated by a button or a lever or something. That way you are just using the trap as a weapon like a gun or knife.
In Texas, you can’t set up a lethal mantrap even if you are at home. The use of lethal force is defensible (not outright permitted but defensible, mind) to protect your person, other people, or your property while you are at home. As was explained to me by a local cop, mantraps cannot determine if the homeowner or the homeowner’s property is at risk or not, so their use is not legally defensible.
Mantraps that don’t feature deadly force aren’t necessarily illegal, whether or not you are at home. And whether or not the use of deadly force is defensible, any victims’ families can still press a civil suit.
IANAL, other states may be different, etc. etc. etc.
ETA: of course, at the end of the day, whether mantraps or castle doctrine, it depends on how a jury views the law. Joe Horn in Houston probably should have at least gone to trial in his killings (backshooting robbers stealing from his neighbors), but the grand jury saw differently.
Folks, please read the OP before jumping off the cliff !!!
IMO, traps will never be legal in this country in these times.
What I think should be legal is for me to be able to hire a person to house sit with the solo intent to protect my home with deadly force. To sit in the dark house armed & ready, even though he is just a hired gun. They should have the same rights to use force as I do.
Insured & bonded & legally armed if you insist.
I provide that service to myself when I am home.
The arguments / opinions of stuff VS human life is for another thread. :eek:
As others have said, the castle doctrine doesn’t have any meaningful impact on the use of mantraps since almost by definition they are not for defense of your life.
What if the trap was built while the owner knows that someone else is in the house? Suppose the owner hears an intruder in the basement, and goes to the second floor and quickly creates some sort of trap. The owner hides, and the intruder eventually triggers the trap. Note that the owner built the whole trap after he heard the intruder in the basement.
My dad told me once about a guy who got tired of somebody stealing his firewood from outside his house. The guy drilled out a piece of the wood and put a stick of dynamite inside as a “surprise” for the thief. Fortunately, he told somebody what he’d done, and that person hastily pointed out that the thief was probably not stealing the wood to burn, but to sell, and some innocent buyer was going to get blown up. The guy said, “Oh shit!” and immediately got rid of his trap.
Then there’s the joke about the watermelon farmer who got tired of people stealing his watermelons. So he posted a sign in his field that said, “One of these watermelons is poisoned, and only I know which one.” The next day he returned to his field and discovered his sign had been altered: “TWO of these watermelons are poisoned…”
So much for three years of law school. No, not because simplistic “no it doesn’t” answers are what I was looking for, but because I meant the recent wave of “stand your ground” laws, not the castle doctrine. :smack::smack::smack:
I’ve messaged a mod asking whether I should re-submit from the get-go or ask for the title and OP to be edited.
And please, if you think, say, Florida 776 is wholly inapplicable, consider showing your work. At least help find the state’s man trap statute or relevant state case law.
