# Intruder injured by boobytrap in home invasion, homeowner arrested. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 13, 2005, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intruder-injured-by-boobytrap-in-home-invasion-homeowner-arrested/330850 "2005-11-13T15:31:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intruder-injured-by-boobytrap-in-home-invasion-homeowner-arrested/330850/121 "2005-11-16T21:17:46Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Sorry. I thought we were discussing the state of jury nullification in America. [Here’s the full text](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=156&invol=51) of the Sparf decision. Read it. And then if you dismiss it, you’d be wrong again. I believe you are referring to this (amongst others): > [@Sparf](#): > > Congress did not intend to invest juries in criminal cases with power arbitrarily to disregard the evidence and the principles of law applicable to the case on trial. That is not the issue. The issue is for the jury to look at the case and ask, _“Is this a bad law?”_ and, _“Is **justice** best served by conviction?”_ Let’s take an extreme and deliberately ludicrous example: Congress passes a law that all men whose surnames start with A must kill men whose surnames start with a B. You’re a juror on the trail where Mr Adam has let Mr Brown live. The facts of the case are utterly clear and Mr Adam is guilty beyond absolute doubt. Are you **really** saying that you would convict? Laws sometimes do not survive the test of the real world. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2005, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intruder-injured-by-boobytrap-in-home-invasion-homeowner-arrested/330850/122 "2005-11-16T21:22:44Z")
> [@Campion](#): > > Oh, and citing to _William Penn_ – what a great example! Only, um, what government was that under? Oh, right – that was 350 freaking years ago! I think the citizens of Pennsylvania would disagree with you. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2005, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intruder-injured-by-boobytrap-in-home-invasion-homeowner-arrested/330850/123 "2005-11-17T05:48:37Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I think I see your point, but I was thinking not about robot attackers, but a guard dog _per se_. They are trained (let’s assume) to attack anyone who trespasses on their territory, although not family members to whom they are carefully socialized. They will, however, attack firefighters, kids who climb the fence to retrieve a lost ball, and burglars. > > So let’s pretend that the dogs will be kept in the kennel during the day, and let out to roam the fenced-in **Shodan** estate at night to protect my priceless collection of celebrity foreskins. > > It sounds like it would not be illegal, because the dogs can be presumed to offer some kind of companionship during the day. But are they inherently immoral, in the way a booby trap would be if it were only activated at night? > > It sounds to me to be roughly the same situation. If you jump the fence, the dogs will rip you to pieces without listening to any explanations. If you jump the fence, the booby trap will go off and shoot you. 1. No, methinks they’re different. Dogs bark: even the stupidest criminal easily perceives the threat. Ok, I take that back: some criminals are pretty dumb. Still. A booby trap is immoral because there is no meaningful and credible way to assure the criminal (and curious 8 year old) that, yes, if you actually step inside here we will kill you automatically. Indeed, a booby trap will typically only work if it’s hidden. (Vicious dogs that have had their voicebox removed would be justifiably illegal of course. I’m also assuming that the dogs are readily identifiable German Shepards, as opposed to fire-spitting beagles with razor sharp teeth.) 2. Or maybe they’re not different: maybe the state should be able to ban certain breeds who are **trained** in certain ways. As it is, if Shodon took Throat and Killer for walks in the park and some person was bitten, many jurisdictions would insist that the dogs be put down. 3. Here’s a thornier problem. Consider the public’s need for fire protection. Say that the Shodon estate is full of flammable tires, or perhaps has the servant’s quarters sited next to the neighbor’s bungalow. Fire spreads. In this context, attack dogs are admittedly pretty similar to booby traps: both impinge on fire safety. In this context I would _think_ that the Fire Marshal could take steps. So I guess I’m saying that the problem is narrower than first indicated. ---
**Author:** ![jackelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a6a055/32.png) [@jackelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackelope)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2005, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intruder-injured-by-boobytrap-in-home-invasion-homeowner-arrested/330850/124 "2005-11-17T07:07:28Z")
> [@Tabby\_Cat](#): > > This thread disturbs me. How is it that so many of you are willing to appoint yourselves “judge and executor (literally)”? Without even any evidence, proof, fair trial, nothing, and just blow them away? And you think that this is a GOOD thing? > [@UncleBeer](#): > > Oh, for fuck’s sake. This thread is nearly unanimous in saying that booby traps are immoral and laws against them are proper. I believe **Tabby\_Cat** was referring, not to booby traps, but to the cock-wavers who for some reason feel compelled, at the slightest provocation, to loudly proclaim their willingness to kill someone who breaks into their home while it’s occupied. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2005, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intruder-injured-by-boobytrap-in-home-invasion-homeowner-arrested/330850/125 "2005-11-17T08:26:18Z")
> [@jackelope](#): > > I believe **Tabby\_Cat** was referring, not to booby traps, but to the cock-wavers who for some reason feel compelled, at the slightest provocation, to loudly proclaim their willingness to kill someone who breaks into their home while it’s occupied. Funny, we’ve had quite a few threads about killing intruders and theives and there’ve been quite a lot of thoughtful and intelligent discussions. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2005, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intruder-injured-by-boobytrap-in-home-invasion-homeowner-arrested/330850/126 "2005-11-17T15:29:41Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > 1. No, methinks they’re different. Dogs bark: even the stupidest criminal easily perceives the threat. That’s a good point. A dog barking and snarling is harder to ignore than a big sign saying, “Warning! Trespassers will be dropped into the Pit of Doom!” > [@](#): > > 1. Or maybe they’re not different: maybe the state should be able to ban certain breeds who are **trained** in certain ways. As it is, if Shodon took Throat and Killer for walks in the park and some person was bitten, many jurisdictions would insist that the dogs be put down. Also an interesting point, but in the opposite direction. Attack dogs would seem to present _more_ of a threat to the public, because they can escape and threaten people who aren’t even trespassing. A big leg-hold trap or a camoflaged pit full of poisoned pungi stakes isn’t going to wander off the grounds. > [@](#): > > 1. Here’s a thornier problem. Consider the public’s need for fire protection. Say that the Shodon estate is full of flammable tires, or perhaps has the servant’s quarters sited next to the neighbor’s bungalow. Fire spreads. In this context, attack dogs are admittedly pretty similar to booby traps: both impinge on fire safety. Which is the crux of the problem, for dogs or booby traps. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2005, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intruder-injured-by-boobytrap-in-home-invasion-homeowner-arrested/330850/127 "2005-11-17T15:50:43Z")
I read this thread at first, left off in the middle, and have now come back with thoughts which I hope do not duplicate previous effort. I believe the laws should be amended on this point that, while boobytraps are illegal, and one is liable for any harm they may do to persons accidentally or legally encoutnering them, there should be an exemption of liability for those persons encountering them while engaged in criminal activity. So in this case, the homeonwer would have to pay the fine for having a boobytrap, and the intruder would need to reconsider a life of crime, but not by virtue of winning a ridiculous amount of money in an unjust lawsuit. Actually, come to think of it, if you’re involved in a felony, you shouldn’t be able to sue anyone for anything that happens while you’re at it. But maybe that’s just me. ---
**Author:** ![pool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pool/32/4152_2.png) [@pool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pool)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2005, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intruder-injured-by-boobytrap-in-home-invasion-homeowner-arrested/330850/128 "2005-11-17T16:19:14Z")
But following that logic CandidGamera then police committing brutality against a suspect couldn’t be prosecuted because he was involved in a felony at the time. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2005, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intruder-injured-by-boobytrap-in-home-invasion-homeowner-arrested/330850/129 "2005-11-17T16:32:13Z")
> [@pool](#): > > But following that logic CandidGamera then police committing brutality against a suspect couldn’t be prosecuted because he was involved in a felony at the time. Not true. The police would be liable for criminal penalties. Just not civil ones. ---
**Author:** ![pool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pool/32/4152_2.png) [@pool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pool)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2005, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intruder-injured-by-boobytrap-in-home-invasion-homeowner-arrested/330850/130 "2005-11-17T17:12:57Z")
Well don’t you think under those circumstances they would be liable for both? ---
**Author:** ![pool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pool/32/4152_2.png) [@pool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pool)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2005, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intruder-injured-by-boobytrap-in-home-invasion-homeowner-arrested/330850/131 "2005-11-17T17:15:20Z")
rather, _should_ be liable. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2005, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intruder-injured-by-boobytrap-in-home-invasion-homeowner-arrested/330850/132 "2005-11-17T17:40:40Z")
Not especially, no. I think the criminal penalty would be sufficient. You shouldn’t be allowed to tangibly benefit from consequences resulting from your commission of a felony. When you operate as a criminal, you have chosen to step outside society’s laws. It’s only fair that you lose some of their protections. And you still keep some. It’s not like if you steal a car you can be wantonly murdered without retribution. The guilty party would face murder charges. You’re still a person. ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2005, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intruder-injured-by-boobytrap-in-home-invasion-homeowner-arrested/330850/133 "2005-11-17T17:41:38Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > I read this thread at first, left off in the middle, and have now come back with thoughts which I hope do not duplicate previous effort. > > I believe the laws should be amended on this point that, while boobytraps are illegal, and one is liable for any harm they may do to persons accidentally or legally encoutnering them, there should be an exemption of liability for those persons encountering them while engaged in criminal activity. > > So in this case, the homeonwer would have to pay the fine for having a boobytrap, and the intruder would need to reconsider a life of crime, but not by virtue of winning a ridiculous amount of money in an unjust lawsuit. > > Actually, come to think of it, if you’re involved in a felony, you shouldn’t be able to sue anyone for anything that happens while you’re at it. > > But maybe that’s just me. Post #73. I was followed with a couple, “Wow, that sounds reasonables,” and then dropped. As to the issue of dogs and police and/or firemen, how about mandating that owners of dogs of a certain size or breed or whatever have a sticker on their windows or door indicating such. If it is always in the same place it can be small yet at the same time easily recognizable by the authorities to warn them of potential danger. That way you can have your dogs while keeping the authorities safer. ---
**Author:** ![vetbridge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b5e925/32.png) [@vetbridge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vetbridge)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2005, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intruder-injured-by-boobytrap-in-home-invasion-homeowner-arrested/330850/134 "2005-11-17T18:13:21Z")
> [@flight](#): > > As to the issue of dogs and police and/or firemen, how about mandating that owners of dogs of a certain size or breed or whatever have a sticker on their windows or door indicating such. How do they handle “professional” guard dogs? A friend of mine in Philadelphia has a business. At closing time, a company brings a vicious dog that roams free in the business overnight. In the a.m. the company retrieves the dog. In the mid-90s my friend was sued by a burglar who was pretty torn up by the dog after a break-in. My friend won in court. How do they handle fires in a situation like that? ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2005, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intruder-injured-by-boobytrap-in-home-invasion-homeowner-arrested/330850/135 "2005-11-17T18:26:59Z")
> [@vetbridge](#): > > How do they handle “professional” guard dogs? A friend of mine in Philadelphia has a business. At closing time, a company brings a vicious dog that roams free in the business overnight. In the a.m. the company retrieves the dog. In the mid-90s my friend was sued by a burglar who was pretty torn up by the dog after a break-in. My friend won in court. > > How do they handle fires in a situation like that? Same sticker I imagine. Would also be of benefit to deter criminals. I would suggest that you log the animal with the police who have a database, but that would be way to expensive for them to implement. Oh, and fires probably would not be as much of a problem there as you would not have firement needing to break in to rescue people. If there is only the building to worry about they can be more careful. ---
**Author:** ![ltfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@ltfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ltfire)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2005, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intruder-injured-by-boobytrap-in-home-invasion-homeowner-arrested/330850/136 "2005-11-17T20:27:59Z")
> [@vetbridge](#): > > How do they handle “professional” guard dogs? A friend of mine in Philadelphia has a business. At closing time, a company brings a vicious dog that roams free in the business overnight. In the a.m. the company retrieves the dog. In the mid-90s my friend was sued by a burglar who was pretty torn up by the dog after a break-in. My friend won in court. > > How do they handle fires in a situation like that? In my former career, there was a row of four story apartment houses that were under renovation. Each building had a guard dog roaming free throughout the building…all doors were left ajar at the end of the work day. The local citizens were opposed to the renovations, as the area was a known drug hang out, and nearly once a night, some mook was setting something on fire, and having fun listening to the dogs howling and barking when the Fire Dept. showed up. We, the Fire Department, were told to ask for Police response to any alarm at these buildings. With the owners permission, because the dog handlers were too far away to come to the scene in a timely fashion, the Police were to shoot any dog preventing the Fire department from entering the building. With the death of two dogs over the course of three days, the building owners removed the dogs. The following weekend, the buildings burned to the ground. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2005, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intruder-injured-by-boobytrap-in-home-invasion-homeowner-arrested/330850/137 "2005-11-17T21:52:52Z")
> [@ltfire](#): > > In my former career, there was a row of four story apartment houses that were under renovation. Each building had a guard dog roaming free throughout the building…all doors were left ajar at the end of the work day. > The local citizens were opposed to the renovations, as the area was a known drug hang out, and nearly once a night, some mook was setting something on fire, and having fun listening to the dogs howling and barking when the Fire Dept. showed up. > We, the Fire Department, were told to ask for Police response to any alarm at these buildings. With the owners permission, because the dog handlers were too far away to come to the scene in a timely fashion, the Police were to shoot any dog preventing the Fire department from entering the building. > With the death of two dogs over the course of three days, the building owners removed the dogs. > The following weekend, the buildings burned to the ground. Perfect. Absolutely perfect. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![pool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pool/32/4152_2.png) [@pool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pool)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2005, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intruder-injured-by-boobytrap-in-home-invasion-homeowner-arrested/330850/138 "2005-11-18T04:11:34Z")
> [@](#): > > Not especially, no. I think the criminal penalty would be sufficient. You shouldn’t be allowed to tangibly benefit from consequences resulting from your commission of a felony. When you operate as a criminal, you have chosen to step outside society’s laws. It’s only fair that you lose some of their protections. But it might not be sufficient if say someone was permanently disabled, its not profit its restitution and even if it was because of a crime they committed, said civil suit would not be required unless the other party had overstepped their bounds and taken criminal action. At first I felt bad the guy in the article in the first post might face civil lawsuits, but I’ve realized he has to be held accountable because he too broke the law. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2005, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intruder-injured-by-boobytrap-in-home-invasion-homeowner-arrested/330850/139 "2005-11-18T16:17:46Z")
> [@pool](#): > > But it might not be sufficient if say someone was permanently disabled, its not profit its restitution and even if it was because of a crime they committed, said civil suit would not be required unless the other party had overstepped their bounds and taken criminal action. At first I felt bad the guy in the article in the first post might face civil lawsuits, but I’ve realized he has to be held accountable because he too broke the law. He should’ve thought of that possibility before engaging in a life of crime. My sympathy is nonexistent. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2005, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intruder-injured-by-boobytrap-in-home-invasion-homeowner-arrested/330850/140 "2005-11-18T18:54:00Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > My sympathy is nonexistent. Mine too, but I still think the homeowner should bear the responsibility of paying his medical bills. Not because some part of me weeps for the poor downtrodden housebreakers of the world – but because anything that discourages people from mining their back yards or installing punji sticks under the rug in the back hallway is a good thing. Otherwise, people are encouraged to play the odds. If people think that they can cripple housebreakers without being on the hook for the cost of their rehabilitation, and they think that it’s more likely that someone will break in before an emergency service worker or some other person has reason to be there, then those personnel are liable to be exposed to a higher risk. By making the automatically-inflicted injury of _even a red-handed burglar_ a losing proposition, cops, EMTs, firefighters, landlords, and anyone else who has a legitimate reason to be on the premises are rendered safer. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intruder-injured-by-boobytrap-in-home-invasion-homeowner-arrested/330850.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intruder-injured-by-boobytrap-in-home-invasion-homeowner-arrested/330850.md?page=8)