Is it legal to booby-trap your own property?

[Guinastasia]

Well, what if there’s an emergency-the fire department, police, or if you have to call an ambulance? And you forget about the booby traps?

Or meter readers, mail carriers, etc.

[Rhum_Runner]

*Originally posted by Q.E.D. *
**Perhaps, but all you’ve got lying on your living room floor is a dead body. Can you prove that it was an attempted rapist, rather than a nosy neighbor, or a petty thief who only wanted your silverware? No, you can’t, because you were not present to make that determination before the intruder was killed. Even if the body is identified, and it turns out he had a long history of rape convictions, his intent in this case cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt. **

Oh, let’s not allow the facts to get in the way of our thought experiment now, please! (Incidently I don’t think you need to prove the intent of the rapist beyond a reasonable doubt, or in fact at all. The focus in the analysis of the use of deadly force is what the person who used the force honestly and reasonably believed the situation to be at the time, i.e. even if the person is not a rapist, if you honestly thought they were, and that belief was not unreasonable, then your self defense argument will hold up)

[Q.E.D]

*Originally posted by Rhum Runner *
**Oh, let’s not allow the facts to get in the way of our thought experiment now, please! (Incidently I don’t think you need to prove the intent of the rapist beyond a reasonable doubt, or in fact at all. The focus in the analysis of the use of deadly force is what the person who used the force honestly and reasonably believed the situation to be at the time, i.e. even if the person is not a rapist, if you honestly thought they were, and that belief was not unreasonable, then your self defense argument will hold up) **

I think you missed my point entirely. You weren’t present at the time to determine the intent of the person who entered your house. The gun would have gone off regardless.

[Rhum_Runner]

Q.E.D.
No, the intent of the person entering the house is not important. The only thing that is important is what the person with the gun thinks the intent of the intruder is. The spring gun stands in the homeowner’s shoes, so to speak, so if you had been there and would have felt threatened, and that feeling would have been reasonable, then you would have had the right to shoot, and ergo the spring gun was also justified. I am not saying this is the argument I would want to have to make to the judge, only that it is what is implied by the language in the Restatement.

[sleeping]

What if you rig your house with various traps but have signs specifically warning everyone about the traps? What if you put a bomb in your car and put a sign up that says “Caution: Do not attempt to steal this car; it has been rigged with an explosive”?

[Tony_Montana]

*Originally posted by sleeping *
**What if you rig your house with various traps but have signs specifically warning everyone about the traps? What if you put a bomb in your car and put a sign up that says “Caution: Do not attempt to steal this car; it has been rigged with an explosive”? **

The bomb itself would be illegal…even if its on your own property

[sleeping]

*Originally posted by Tony Montana *
**The bomb itself would be illegal…even if its on your own property **

OK.

But what if you use legal materials such as a rock, hammer, spear, etc.?

[broccoli]

OK, doggies get signs… What if you were to set potentially dealy traps all over, but put up signs like “Warning: You will die here! Potentially deadly traps set all over” ? Of course, this gives the would be theif a heads up, but still a good trap wouldn’ be found by a normal B & E guy who’ not used to them.

Also: What about spring loaded shotguns full of rock salt… not deadly but painful as all Hell?

[Bearflag70]

My WAG, based upon public policy prohibiting spring guns (already articulated in this thread) is that a homeowner shooting and killing a threatening intruder by handgun would be able to claim self defense as a defense to murder while self defense would not be available as a defense for the homeowner who killed the intruder via spring gun even though the end result is the same (i.e., dead intruder).

[Tony_Montana]

*Originally posted by sleeping *
**OK.

But what if you use legal materials such as a rock, hammer, spear, etc.? **

I think AcidKid answered that one…

[Max_Torque]

*Originally posted by Rhum Runner *
**Q.E.D.
No, the intent of the person entering the house is not important. The only thing that is important is what the person with the gun thinks the intent of the intruder is. The spring gun stands in the homeowner’s shoes, so to speak, so if you had been there and would have felt threatened, and that feeling would have been reasonable, then you would have had the right to shoot, and ergo the spring gun was also justified. I am not saying this is the argument I would want to have to make to the judge, only that it is what is implied by the language in the Restatement. **

I don’t think you’re reading the passage from the Restatement fully and properly. Sure, if the homeowner were there, he might feel threatened and might be privileged to use deadly force, depending on the circumstances. But, because the house is empty, no one’s life is at risk, and the privilege to use deadly force is not applicable. What the homeowner might feel if he were home is irrelevant; the fact is that no one is actually being threatened means that there is no justification for the use of deadly force. That’s what “he cannot gain a privilege to install, for the purpose of protecting his land from intrusions harmless to the lives and limbs of the occupiers or users of it, a mechanical device whose only purpose is to inflict death or serious harm upon such as may intrude…” means.

Now, if you create a trap that’s only set when you’re home, that might be a different set of circumstances. I don’t know of any cases offhand for such a situation.

[Bearflag70]

*Originally posted by Bearflag70 *
**My WAG, based upon public policy prohibiting spring guns (already articulated in this thread) is that a homeowner shooting and killing a threatening intruder by handgun would be able to claim self defense as a defense to murder while self defense would not be available as a defense for the homeowner who killed the intruder via spring gun even though the end result is the same (i.e., dead intruder). **

…and this WAG assumes the following for both cases:

(1) the homeowner is home at the time of the intrusion;

(2) the homeowner feels threatened by the intruder;

(3) the spring gun and hand gun yield the same force.

[sleeping]

Hmmm…

What about if you have a REALLY loud alarm that goes off suddenly and the thief has a heart attack? Could he sue you? Could his family?

And why are attack dogs allowed while traps with warning signs are not? Both provide prior info as to what an intruder is getting himself into.

What about the oft-told tale of the burglar who sued the homeowner after injuring himself on an ax/knife left on the floor (clearly not intended to be a trap) during a robbery?

[Tony_Montana]

*Originally posted by sleeping *
[B
And why are attack dogs allowed while traps with warning signs are not? Both provide prior info as to what an intruder is getting himself into.

If you wont read the posts the Dope can’t help you

What about the oft-told tale of the burglar who sued the homeowner after injuring himself on an ax/knife left on the floor (clearly not intended to be a trap) during a robbery? **

What is your question?

[sleeping]

My question is whether or not that story is true and, if such a situation occurred, what the verdict would be.

[Rhum_Runner]

Hi Max,
ok, here is the entire § 85 of the restatement (second) of torts.

The actor is so far privileged to use a device intended or likely to cause serious bodily harm or death for the purpose of protecting his land or chattels from intrusion that he is not liable for the serious bodily harm or death thereby caused to an intruder whose intrusion is, in fact, such that the actor, were he present, would be privileged to prevent or terminate it by the intentional infliction of such harm.

Here are some of the comments:

c. As is stated in § 79, one in possession of land may use force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious harm for the purpose of preventing another, whom he sees attempting to intrude upon it, from accomplishing his purpose if the threatened intrusion reasonably appears to him to involve danger of death or serious bodily harm to the occupiers or users of the land or chattels. He is privileged to do indirectly that which he is privileged to do directly. Therefore, he is so far privileged to install a mechanical device which is reasonably necessary to protect his land or chattels from such intrusions that he is not liable for even the death or serious bodily harm caused by it to one committing or attempting to commit such an intrusion. The practical impossibility that a possessor of land can be always and everywhere on guard personally to prevent such dangerous intrusions as they may occur makes it proper to give him the privilege to use such devices, notwithstanding their inability to give, before operating against an intruder, such a warning as the possessor would be required to give were he present. And it is not necessary for the possessor, in order to relieve himself from liability for the death or serious harm of such an intruder, to give such a warning of his use of the device as is required to prevent liability for bodily harm caused by the use of less harmful though unusual devices for the purpose of protecting his land from less dangerous intrusions.
d. The user of a device likely to cause death or serious bodily harm is not protected from liability merely by the fact that the intruder’s conduct is such as would justify the actor, were he present, in believing that his intrusion is so dangerous or criminal as to confer upon the actor the privilege of killing or maiming him to prevent it. The actor is relieved from liability only if the intruder is, in fact, one whose intrusion involves danger of life and limb of the occupants of the dwelling place or is for the purpose of committing certain serious crimes, as to which see §§ 142(2) and 143(2). Even though the conduct of the intruder is such as would have justified the actor in mistakenly believing the intrusion to be of this character, there is the chance that the actor, if present in person, would realize the other’s situation. An intruder whose intrusion is not of this character is entitled to the chance of safety arising from the presence of a human being capable of judgment. (emphasis added)

So, based on my reading, I must retract what I said earlier. The intruder must be an actual criminal attempting to commit a crime such that the owner, were he present, would have a right to use deadly force. The fact that the intruder might have given rise to an honest and reasonable perception of criminal intent and danger is not enough.

[Tony_Montana]

*Originally posted by sleeping *
**My question is whether or not that story is true and, if such a situation occurred, what the verdict would be. **

Helephino, look on Snopes…

[sleeping]

Already did. Found nothing.

However, one Stella award presents a similar situation:
“Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was leaving a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn’t re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, and Mr.Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner’s insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of $500,000.”
But the veracity of this is undetermined

[Sock_Munkey]

The title of this thread made me picture a woman with a mouse trap hidden in her cleavage in case someone tries to feel her up.

[Q.E.D]

*Originally posted by Rhum Runner *
**So, based on my reading, I must retract what I said earlier. The intruder must be an actual criminal attempting to commit a crime such that the owner, were he present, would have a right to use deadly force. The fact that the intruder might have given rise to an honest and reasonable perception of criminal intent and danger is not enough. **

I won’t say I told you so. Well, actually I will.