# Question on case law for lethal mantraps **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 8, 2012, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-case-law-for-lethal-mantraps/615111 "2012-03-08T03:56:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Wizard\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Wizard\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wizard_One)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-case-law-for-lethal-mantraps/615111/1 "2012-03-08T03:56:24Z")
I watched, with great alarm for any client who sought the services of a certain company, the joyful providing of an automatic weapon system that would shoot any intruder. Said program was regarding the “Doomsday Bunkers” television show. Now, I AM aware of some laws, I’ve been told about them by attorneys and friends in the armament industry. But, I have no clue what the code is and case law. If I were to give advice, I’d far, far prefer to refer to US code, various state laws and case law, to disadvise such lunatic notions, save if the “world came to an end”, upon which, they’d not bother, as they’re ON the ended world… 😉 For me, I only want an underground bunker that is 30 meters long for a firing range, but only because it’d be ugly above ground and noisy to the neighbors. As I’ve not done anything toward such a thing, it obviously isn’t of great interest, as I have a handful of ranges nearby to have my target practice at. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-case-law-for-lethal-mantraps/615111/2 "2012-03-08T15:26:10Z")
The basic heading of law would be Tort liability and the “Duty to trespassers”. Simply because a person is breaking the law does not give a homeowner the right to mantrap his premises. Now, this is of course different from a “head on” confrontation and any so called Castle doctrine. ---
**Author:** ![Raza](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raza/32/213_2.png) [@Raza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raza)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-case-law-for-lethal-mantraps/615111/3 "2012-03-08T15:32:24Z")
From my undergraduate law school days, we studied a case where a farmer had setup a shotgun device in his barn to “catch” intruders. Sure enough, he got one. He was found liable. I was in this class in the early 80s, so the case was before that; sorry, I don’t have my old textbooks handy, but I’m sure some of the lawyers can provide actual cites. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-case-law-for-lethal-mantraps/615111/4 "2012-03-08T15:59:42Z")
Mantraps that involve the use of deadly force are illegal in the state of Texas (other states, too, but I don’t know which ones in particular). That’s part of the training you receive if you apply for a concealed handgun license. At the very least, protection of property is not by itself an acceptable defense in many states for civil trials. So, even if you face no criminal liability, you can certainly get sued by the person or family for damages. The shotgun case mentioned above is probably [Katko v Briney](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney). I doubt you’ll find anything in US code. These types of laws are generally to be found at the state level. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-case-law-for-lethal-mantraps/615111/5 "2012-03-08T16:25:53Z")
> [@Raza](#): > > From my undergraduate law school days, we studied a case where a farmer had setup a shotgun device in his barn to “catch” intruders. Sure enough, he got one. He was found liable. This is the Katko case referenced above, and it’s still taught (we learned it last year, in fact). A gun based trap is referred to as a “spring gun” by the courts. The underlying rationale- which **Great Antibob** alluded to- is that you can only use deadly force to protect _people._ If you or someone else you have the legal right to protect isn’t in imminent danger, you can’t shoot someone… so if you aren’t _there_ when the trap goes off, you did not have the privilege of self-defense. As the Restatement (quoted in Katko) put it: > [@](#): > > ‘The value of human life and limb, not only to the individual concerned but also to society, so outweights the interest of a possessor of land in excluding from it those whom he is not willing to admit thereto that a possessor of land has, as is stated in s 79, no privilege to use force intended or likely to cause death or serious harm against another whom the possessor sees about to enter his premises or meddle with his chattel,unless the intrusion threatens death or serious bodily harm to the occupiers or users of the premises. \* \* \* A possessor of land cannot do indirectly and by a mechanical device that which, were he present, he could not do immediately and in person. Therefore, 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, by giving notice of his intention to inflict, by mechanical means and indirectly, harm which he could not, even after request, inflict directly were he present.’ On the other hand, if you were sleeping on a couch in the entryway, the result would probably be different. Keep in mind that Katko refers specifically to tort liability to intruders. The leading gun on _criminal_ culpability for shooting intruders with traps is [People v. Ceballos](People v. Ceballos), where the spring gun owner was found culpable on a similar basis. ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-case-law-for-lethal-mantraps/615111/6 "2012-03-08T18:22:54Z")
Okay - no deadly force booby-traps. What about ones that would trap but not injure (like have a heart traps for rodents, except human sized)? Surely that should be allowed (assuming the traps are checked, or rigged to call police when activated). ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-case-law-for-lethal-mantraps/615111/7 "2012-03-08T18:43:30Z")
I would suggest a quick trip to your local attorney before acting on any lay advice in this matter. I’m pretty sure the law is codified in every jurisdiction with respect to defending persons _or property_. About 6 months ago, in my area, an off duty policeman was awaken one night by a group of persons attempting to load his motorcycle into their van. He confronted the group with his gun drawn, and something went wrong and he ended up shooting one of the thieves causing a non lethal injury. He was not charged with any criminal act, but they were. I don’t know if it was because he was a cop, or if the matter would have had a different result had the shot been lethal. This matter is different than the OP’s call in respect to the victim being present when the crime was in progress, but it is an example of defending one’s property, not one’s life. I’ll leave this to a practicing attorney to explain into if it’s worth bothering with. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-case-law-for-lethal-mantraps/615111/8 "2012-03-08T18:55:35Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > Okay - no deadly force booby-traps. What about ones that would trap but not injure (like have a heart traps for rodents, except human sized)? Probably varies by state. At least in Texas, they’re not necessarily illegal. Here, the law is written so it only covers traps with the homeowner away and a lethal component involved. But what constitutes “deadly” force or even a “weapon” is also determined by statute, so you’d need to consult with an expert. They can’t be entirely illegal everywhere, as there are evening ATMs and drop boxes designed so you can be secured between the outer and inner doors of a building. That’s technically a mantrap, even if it’s being used for the safety/convenience of customers. In addition to consulting a criminal attorney, the local police would probably be helpful. That said, most local police around here would then take the opportunity to advocate you get some firearms and probably a CHL as well. ---
**Author:** ![hogarth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hogarth/32/1773_2.png) [@hogarth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hogarth)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-case-law-for-lethal-mantraps/615111/9 "2012-03-08T18:57:18Z")
An older thread on vicious dogs that evolved into a discussion of mantraps/spring guns: > **[Legal liability if a dog mauls or kills a burglar?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=376499)** > > The following question popped up on another message board I frequent, and I figured the legal eagles here might find it interesting. Suppose I own a Doberman. While I’m at work one day, a burglar forcibly enters my house. My dog, territorial... It’s chock full of legal references from Gfactor. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-case-law-for-lethal-mantraps/615111/10 "2012-03-08T20:36:58Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > At least in Texas, they’re not necessarily illegal. Here, the law is written so it only covers traps with the homeowner away and a lethal component involved. But what constitutes “deadly” force or even a “weapon” is also determined by statute, so you’d need to consult with an expert. One of the underlying reasons for the prohibition on spring guns is that there are always circumstances in which emergency responders might need to enter your home without permission. The same would apply to nonlethal traps. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-case-law-for-lethal-mantraps/615111/11 "2012-03-09T15:08:58Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > One of the underlying reasons for the prohibition on spring guns is that there are always circumstances in which emergency responders might need to enter your home without permission. The same would apply to nonlethal traps. That’s true, but that doesn’t make nonlethal traps illegal, either. Spring guns are definitely out, as are pretty much any traps involving the use of gun or other weapon. But a trap that merely keeps them from exiting (like the dead space trap I mentioned above) would probably be considered benign. [Here](http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#00)’s the relevant section of Texas law. There’s no exception to make things easier for emergency responders to enter your home without permission, as long as the trap is not designed to cause bodily harm or death. I would believe it if other states had such provisions, though. Texas is rather…permissive…about what it considers inviolable rights of property owners. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-case-law-for-lethal-mantraps/615111/12 "2012-03-09T15:17:41Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > That’s true, but that doesn’t make nonlethal traps illegal, either. Spring guns are definitely out, as are pretty much any traps involving the use of gun or other weapon. But a trap that merely keeps them from exiting (like the dead space trap I mentioned above) would probably be considered benign. So a trap that caught a firefighter entering your building “would probably be considered benign”? Even it caused him/her to die in the fire? ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-case-law-for-lethal-mantraps/615111/13 "2012-03-09T15:33:10Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > So a trap that caught a firefighter entering your building “would probably be considered benign”? Even it caused him/her to die in the fire? In Texas? It would be tragic, but the property owner would probably not be charged with a crime. Does that mean the law is flawed? Maybe, but there’s no positive requirement for property owners to make their property easily accessible to emergency responders, either. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-case-law-for-lethal-mantraps/615111/14 "2012-03-09T17:38:51Z")
I assume you’re referring to this bit, which I agree protects the property owner from criminal culpability: > [@](#): > > Sec. 9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if: > > (1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and > > (2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device. However, note also this section, which suggests the landowner is not free of tort liability (unless there is a companion section to the above in the Texas civil code): > [@](#): > > Sec. 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-case-law-for-lethal-mantraps/615111/15 "2012-03-09T18:12:18Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > However, note also this section, which suggests the landowner is not free of tort liability (unless there is a companion section to the above in the Texas civil code): Yes, this is absolutely true. It’s another point that was brought up in CHL classes. Even if you’re off the hook criminally, you may still face a civil trial. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-case-law-for-lethal-mantraps/615111/16 "2012-03-09T19:22:31Z")
I have trouble imagining how anyone could consider a restraining device (say a locking snare) to not “create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury”. After all, if we can think of it off hand, then a “reasonable person” would also ask about the risk of being trapped in a burning building. I guess it’s something that a jury might need to decide. The only way to find out is to do it and see if you end up doing life in he pen. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-case-law-for-lethal-mantraps/615111/17 "2012-03-09T19:34:58Z")
Someone trapped a few days while the owner is away from home could die of thirst. I’m failing to think of any ‘traps’ which couldn’t cause death under some circumstances. Anybody got an example? ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-case-law-for-lethal-mantraps/615111/18 "2012-03-09T21:10:54Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > So a trap that caught a firefighter entering your building “would probably be considered benign”? Even it caused him/her to die in the fire? Legally messy but as firefighters dont work alone, a locking atrium type situation would be unlikely to be more than an irritation to a fire crew if even one of them is still outside. Firefighters have the keys to all doors, not all of those keys leave you with a functional door after, but they can open them. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-case-law-for-lethal-mantraps/615111/19 "2012-03-09T21:58:39Z")
Several years ago I recall reading about a security system that filled a building with foam whne the burglar alarm was tripped. the idea was that you could not tell where you were, where to get out, etc. That’s about as close as I can imagine to safe under foreseeable circumstances. (I assume a fire for example would burn off the foam…) ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2012, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-case-law-for-lethal-mantraps/615111/20 "2012-03-09T22:24:54Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > I have trouble imagining how anyone could consider a restraining device (say a locking snare) to not “create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury”. Well, that’s what we have juries and courts for. The intent, if not the exact wording, of the Texas standard is that you shouldn’t have traps involving weapons. While it’s possible that a “safe” trap can still cause death or bodily harm in extreme cases, the intent of the law is to prevent a trap explicitly designed to cause death or injury, rather than address traps that potentially cause bodily harm but only under adverse circumstances. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-on-case-law-for-lethal-mantraps/615111.md?page=2)