I believe you are referring to this (amongst others):
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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!”
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.
Which is the crux of the problem, for dogs or booby traps.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.