Suppose instead of a shotgun, I pour a wall of concrete behind my front door and paint it black. A burglar breaks open the door in the middle of the night and walks into it, getting a concussion. Am I criminally liable? If so, how far does this go? What is my obligation to make my home safe for burglars?
You need to stop buying shit from ACME.
I’m not following this thread, but I wanted to share this image that popped up on FB yesterday.
As I said, I’m not following the thread; but I think someone said that if the mailbox isn’t functional then it’s a trap. This one seems to be functional.
I think building something to last is a good thing and is not wrong. It’s a passive, inert object, if someone runs into it, that isn’t the mailbox’s fault. Same as a utility pole or a tree, people hit plenty of them too.
Characterises the point significantly. If the mailbox is dangerous and non-functional as a result of the dangerous design, that would make it very hard to defend from an accusation that it was intended as a trap. The mailboc can be functional and still a trap. The mailbox can be non-functional and not be a trap. The mailbox can be functional and not be a trap. In the end, non-functionality only has a (significant) supporting element to making a case that a trap has been laid.
The linked picture would suggest that for at least the person captioning the picture, the fact that the functional mailbox presents a clear danger to belligerent teenagers with baseball bats further supports the point that a reasonable person would conclude that the intent of the mailbox is to present an intentional danger to those teenagers. There is no useful functionality added to that mailbox by the concrete. The prime purpose would seem to be one of causing injury.
I’m generally on team “don’t booby trap stuff”, but the functionality added to that mailbox is that if someone hits it with a baseball bat, you don’t have to replace it. It holds mail (I don’t know if there are specs around the usable volume of a mailbox), so it is functional.
Sure. But what would you judge the likely outcome for our notional teenager is going to be if they take a swing at it with a baseball bat from a moving car?
If your answer includes any reasonable supposition of injury, we have an issue with minimally reckless endangerment.
Functionality has no bearing on this question. I keep reiterating this. It matters not whether the mailbox is functional or not. Not functional makes it even harder to defend intent, but functionality itself does not provide a defence. If a reasonable person seeing that mailbox would believe that an errant teenager with a bat would be injured, that is all that matters.
Opinions as to the rightness of this don’t matter. Save it for your trial.
What about the difference between someone buying the cheapest economy car that weight 2,600 pounds and buying a Chevrolet Suburban that weighs 6,000 pounds? If someone runs into the cheap economy car it might not hurt them as much as the Suburban would. Was the Suburban owner liable for causing more damage because their vehicle is bigger and stronger?
No. Not unless they bought it with the intent of running into the smaller car.
I just don’t understand where all these questions come from. I wrote earlier that if your question doesn’t include intent or recklessness it doesn’t add to the conversation.
Why the continual steam of pointless wheedling around the point? It isn’t hard.
Apparently it IS “hard.” Otherwise we wouldn’t be having such a long discussion about it.
If functionality has no bearing on it then we’re left with an inert object that is not designed to actively harm anyone.
I’ll say it again, any injury that results in trying to damage it is the result of the actions of the person trying to damage it.
I doubt we are going agree here, but if a mailbox looking object is capable of receiving mail per USPS regulations and has been reinforced such that it is unlikely to take damage and need to be replaced if a notional teenager decides to swing a bat at it, then if I am on the jury that teenager and/or his estate are out of luck.
As opposed to a mailbox looking object that is swapped out after the mail carrier has completed his daily rounds for the express purpose of hurting the notional teenager. In that case, the owner of the trap is out of luck.
I have never served on a jury but my understanding of the way this works is that the jury is note supposed to decide who is morally right in their personal judgement, only who is legally right based on the applicable law. I am guessing that something would happen like the judge giving instructions to the effect of: “You are to decide whether the owner of the mailbox should have had a reasonable expectation that his modification could cause injury. You are not to consider the legality of the actions of the injured party, only if those actions were reasonably expected, and whether injury could reasonably be expected to result.”
No. That is the entire point. Even its inertness is of no import. If the physical object’s characteristics can result in injury, that is all that matters. That the object is active or not does not enter into it. This argument about inert versus active is just an invention for the sake of argument.
Again, none of this is hard, and I am mystified as to why there are incessant attempts manufacture arguments that are riddled with all the usual fallacies or just ignore critical points.
You haven’t established what characteristics of private property are actionable. There are mailboxes of heavy gauge steel that cannot be crushed with a bat.
And the argument regarding inert vs active is absolutely germane the to topic. It’s the difference between a booby trap and an infinite variety of private property. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a mailbox or a statue.
If you can’t differentiate between a statue and other objects then there is no legal basis in which to charge someone with a crime.
Let’s try it this way. I am 16 years old. I am in the back seat of my buddy’s car with a baseball bat. I see a regular mailbox. I roll down the window, take a swing and watch the mailbox fly away. I laugh and pop another beer.
Alternatively, the mailbox is filled with concrete. I take a swing and break both arms.
In the first scenario, I was uninjured. In the second, I was. What was the difference in the two scenarios? Note: It wasn’t the “actions” of me “trying to damage” the mailbox.
You are arguing that I shouldn’t be swinging at mailboxes in the first place, but you are arguing with nobody.
I’m arguing that swinging at mailboxes from a car in a dangerous act with no possible standards of safety. There is no presumption of safety regarding the act.
there are no limits to the fortification of private property. If you want a bank vault door then you are free to add one to your house.
Until this thread, I would never have supposed that a concrete filled mailbox would cause serious injury or death to someone inclined to take a swing at it. Maybe a severe stinging in the hands, but if I were to do such a thing, my intent would be to reinforce the mailbox such that it wouldn’t have to be replaced if it were so struck, not to seek vengeance on the would be striker.
Neither are germane the the question. You might want to believe they are, but the reality is that you are making stuff up.
Again no.
The entire point is reasonableness and intent. If a reasonable person could foresee that what you have done will endanger, or increase the risk of injury to another, you have a problem. That is it. Private property is immaterial. Your responsibilities to fellow citizens do not magically change whether you are on your own property or not. Active versus inactive object is immaterial, it is the effect on another that matters.
There seems to be some sort of attitude that verges on sovereign citizen. My home, my castle, my rules. As much as one might wish this to be the case, the simple reality is that when you are faced with an injured or dead person, you can absolutely forget all that. Somehow thinking that these arguments will provide a defence to a criminal charge are just fantasy. You will need to convince 12 members of your peers that you had no intent and could not have reasonably foreseen that an serious injury could result from your mailbox construction. That is what stands between you and a prison stretch. All the handwaving about private property, reckless teenagers, matters nothing. Again, this isn’t a matter of opinion. You might as well argue your opinions about what the tax laws should be with the IRS for all the good it will do in practice.
It’s reasonable and legal to fortify your property.
It’s not reasonable or legal to damage property.
there is no legal expectation that property be made safe for destruction.
Again, it’s not the mailbox that causes injury, it’s the person engaging in a dangerous act that causes injury. A reasonable person can foresee the danger involved by hanging out of a moving vehicle and striking something with a bat.